Category: Book Reviews

For my book review I will be analyzing Joshua Mitchell’s book American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time. There are three major themes to this book that Mitchell believes prevent Americans from the concept of working together toward a common world. Identity politics, bipolarity and addictions are concepts that are plaguing American society. This book addresses a public crisis with identity politics as well as private affairs with the other two ideas.  The purpose of this review is to analyze and critique the argument as well as solutions that Mitchell makes throughout this novel. 

In part one Mitchell defines identity and then how this transpires in reality. Identity is a relatively modern concept as it was first introduced in the 1990s. Today identity is shaped as one type becomes an offending transgressor while the other is viewed as an innocent victim. The attachments to these identities extend beyond the moment as they are considered permanent, regardless if the individual contributed to transgression. The concept of identity politics can be considered a quasi-religion as the individual stands for the related transgression. Transgressor and innocents are a concept drawn from Chirstianity. Religion has not decreased within America, but has moved into the framework of identity politics. 

Identity politics departs from the liberal idea of citizens building a community. Within the liberal framework, individuals do not work in the nature of self-interest, by alongside fellow citizens to build a community. This task seems difficult, as Mitchell believes that we are satisfied with the categories that we have placed ourselves into and the cost of undoing it is too high. Mitchell’s reasoning to move away from identity politics in order to unify seems reasonable. However, a critique of removing self-interest appears to be a fine line. The idea of an individual is not to become a robot of the state. I think that self-interest cannot completely disappear as this is what creates personality. 

Another critique that I have of Mitchell’s idea of a liberal citizen is how it needs to be cultivated. In order to reach this point, frequent, real time conversations need to occur, otherwise a false depiction of others will grow during time spent apart. Social media and other forms of telecommunication are large barriers preventing the liberal citizen from emerging. A starting point to cultivate a citizen would be through education. This type of environment could foster the conversations needed that social media cannot replicate. Since social media is largely used as an escape from reality, it would need to be completely restructured to achieve Mitchell’s desired effect. The idea of a broken link is brought up in the section about the bipolarity experienced today. 

The concept of bipolarity can be traced back to the transition from the aristocracy into the democratic age. In an aristocratic society each individual serves a role to another individual in order for the government to function, which links everyone together. However, democracy breaks this link. With the newfound freedom, a democratic man believes that he can save Earth and not God. Although, constraining forces of democracy overwhelm, and they renounce freedom altogether. Therefore, it is the combination of feeling so powerful that you do not need others, yet also feeling powerless that we do not turn to others to work together. This dichotomy can be difficult to escape given the issues prevalent in politics today. These issues are approaching with opposing views that each side becomes obsessed with “winning” over fixing it. I think that this obsession translates into Mitchell’s idea of addiction that ailing American society. 

Mitchell believes that the cause of addiction occurs when the supplement becomes the substitute. He relates this to plastic water bottles and fast food chains that are plaguing society. These are temporary concepts that we have relied on for too long as they now have a large presence. The idea of supplements can be applied to the federal government as it is expanding, the problems grow worse and the political parties are in opposition to each other. Mitchell calls on the everyday citizens to heal this wound. This seems ironic as in the previous section on bipolarity, he believes that the world continuously falls short, therefore activism is episodic. Thus, causes humans to oscillate between feeling greater than a king or less than man. It seems that Mitchell wants to establish that humans must first rid the bipolarity of feelings to eliminate living on “borrowed time.”

In the conclusion, Mitchell takes on the philosophical framework of Rousseau. Rousseau wanted to have a civilization which resembled one of the state of nature. He believed that the resulting forces of badly designed societies have resulted in humans being selfish. Mitchell stated the combination of technology and industry have disrupted nature. In order to move forward they need to be removed. This is achieved through rejected Western ideas and its privilege. Although this concept is beneficial to improve reason, I think it fails to recognize the limitations it places on society. I believe that to a certain extent technological advancements are helpful. However, I think the rise of social media can contribute to disruptions that Mitchell is referring to. Information is much more accessible compared to the past and can spread unchecked. I disagree that technology and industry have to become obsolete. Removing these concepts would prove rather difficult given the interdependence on technology globally. Thus, they should be reformed in order to add value to human reason. 

Throughout Mitchell’s book he argues that liberalism, in its original meaning, would be more beneficial for American society. He argues for liberalism by explaining the ailments of identity politics, bipolarity, and addiction. The examples ailments provided are not new problems that we face today. Rather, the roots of these “diseases” are based in Christianity, and in current times take a new form. In Mitchell’s conclusion, he discusses a solution to achieve the liberal competence. He states that  renewing the middle-class republic as our country was established is the starting point. Two other problems that need to be fixed are reframing the wound of slavery, and restructuring America’s foreign policy. Mitchell is hopeful for the future if citizens are able put in the necessary and difficult labor. Within this future that Mitchell envisions would require that Americans unify and put together their differences, which seems difficult with the polarizing nature of politics in recent years. Society would have to abandon this quasi-religion of identity politics. 

For this book review, I will be analyzing Joshua Mitchell’s American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time. In this book, Mitchell points out Identity Politics as the key threat to American society today, and, bipolarity and addiction are the two main causes behind the emergence of identity politics. Mitchell claims that identity politics is problematic because it is an unhealthy form of management of the society that will lead to conflict between members within one society. The solution he proposes to the problem of identity politics — and what he believes to be the optimal way societies are managed in America — is “liberal politics of competence.”

To start, Mitchell gives a short introduction on the religious history of western societies and the notion of “spiritual economy.” While Christianity declined in western societies — According to recent surveys by Pew Research, it seems that America is declining in its religiosity — there are certain things that persisted. Mitchell believes that western societies, especially America, have a persistent fixation on the spiritual economy, which focuses on guilt vs. innocence. The notion of spiritual economy was part of the essence of Christianity, yet a deformed understanding of it. In Christianity, people deal with their imperfections by accepting the existence of a scapegoat, Christ, who sacrificed himself for the sin, imperfection, and guilt of all people on Earth. Yet, identity politics revolves around constant “scapegoating.” Through identifying certain innocent groups of the society, the corresponding transgressors are also identified. So if one was being a faithful Christian, he or she would be assessed by God once he or she dies; they would be granted a spot in heaven if they had lived a good life, or a spot in hell if they lived a bad life. Thus, the accounting of sin and guilt occurs in another world, after life. However, identity politics try to get even fully in this life.

Aside from how difficult it will be to truly calculate the debt, for example, if there were reparations made to the black Americans by white Americans, “how much each individual will pay and in what form,” their attempt resembles similar attempts in progressivism, communism, the new left movements, and other intellectual-led movements. A utopian world is the goal of all these movements, yet this is not realistically possible on Earth. In this aspect, identity politics is a form of quasi-religion that also tries to bring an utopia to Earth, one where all transgressions have been accounted for — a guilt-free world. Moreover, identity politics’s attempt is also self-contradictory: they hold the belief that groups ought to be unities and they wish to give voice to those who don’t have a voice, yet, in this process the transgressors aren’t being treated in the same fashion. So we see how this is similar to the new left student movements in Berkeley, where the students had called for freedom of speech and expression, but they also made efforts to silence and fight against those who held ideas different from theirs.

However, the issue is that scapegoating does not solve the problem, as the transgressor is not always the real source of the problems. The transgressor might be one party that is involved, and a sinned one, but it doesn’t mean that the transgression can be attributed entirely to the transgressor. This is the idea of addiction — attempting to alleviate the symptoms rather than curing the problem. For identity politics, purging the scapegoat is a way to relieve the pressure and discharge the guilt. The scapegoat can be an innocent person, or it can be a system or an institution, such as the church or the government. For example, Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation alone did not solve the problem of slavery during civil war; nor did anti-racism and anti-discrimination acts solve the racial conflicts in America.

Mitchell claims that addiction worsens the problem of identity politics as people seek to give up their own responsibility in constructing a society that is healthy. In this process, people become less involved in the community that is around them. An example given in the book was about bottled water. Because of the poor water quality of the tap water, people turn to buying bottled water. Yet, they could have gone to do various things like replacing pipes or reporting to certain agencies so they get clean tap water again. In some sense, they are also choosing the easiest way for themselves, that is at the same time an unhealthy way for society to deal with this issue. The same logic can be observed in identity politics: instead of figuring out the problems by talking and debating with other people in the society, a lot of people believe in the “management society.” I find this argument similar to Gad Saad’s argument about trigger warnings, which serve as tools to prevent people from getting hurt. In this case, the warning is merely a form of palliative that allows people to be free from potential pain momentarily. However, to really prevent people from getting hurt, one and for all, we should encourage people to grow stronger mentally, so that they are prepared for whatever encounters and not get hurt from them.

Mitchell also addresses the issue of bipolarity within American society and how it contributes to the rise of identity politics. He argues that American society has been plagued by a bipolarity that is rooted in its history and that has been exacerbated by the decline of communities. This bipolarity is manifested in the way that Americans view themselves and others, and it is characterized by an mentality in a way similar to manic depression or bipolar disorder. Because of weakened social connections between people, on one hand, the selfish man feel invincible; on the other hand, he feels powerless. This bipolarity is reflected in the way that Americans approach issues such as race, gender, and sexuality, and it is a key factor behind the rise of identity politics.

In summary, Joshua Mitchell explains that the spiritual economy, as a deformed heritage of Christianity, constructs the core of today’s identity politics. Moreover, what Mitchell identifies as bipolarity and addiction are obstacles that also must be tackled before the society can be healthy again. In his analysis of identity politics, I was also to draw several connections between the book and things we have studied in class. I also see how studying the intellectual class helps us better understand wokeism, or identity politics, in American society today.

To begin this review of Peter Wood’s book, 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, we must first understand the premise of the 1619 Project and what its aim is in the context of American history. The 1619 Project is the initiative to “reframe the nation’s history” by altering the birth year of the United States from 1776 to 1619. 1619 was the year in which two ships arrived in Jamestown, Virginia from West Africa carrying slaves. The goal of this project was to embed slavery into the core principles of which our country is built upon and transform the way we think about the United States. This project was delivered to the public in August of 2019 by Nikole Hannah-Jones and a group of intellectual journalists and historians to back up her argument in The New York Times magazine. This article gained traction right away from all people, whether that be intellectual or lay people in society, even though it had almost no documentation or “rigorous scholarship”, as Wood describes in his book. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Wood took it upon himself to respond to such an abrasive and seemingly controversial article released by one of the most prestigious and influential news platforms in the world. Wood attempts to argue that the actual year that set the stage for how our country was laid out and core beliefs and principles on which we stand should be 1620: the year in which the pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts. He argues that the Mayflower Compact was the major document and dictator in steering our country to self-government and to ultimately separate from the King across the Atlantic. Throughout this book he aimed to clarify the history of America and expose the falsehoods and hypocrisies within the language of the 1619 Project. 

Wood begins his critique of the 1619 Project by setting the stage with his argument of 1620 being the first influential year within American history. He begins by citing the Mayflower Compact by depicting the specific wording and historical context in which they wrote this document. The forty-one signers of the document utilized Old Testament scripture and their religious background to fortify and combine themselves into what they call “a civil body politic”. This united, single civil body politic is simply a cohort of people that agree to govern themselves under a common set of rules and laws through peaceful debate. The 1619 Project however, claims the actual start year of our nation begins when English pirates landed in Jamestown, Virginia with thirty some African slaves. The New York Times declared that the arrival of these slaves established the institution of chattel slavery in the Americas that would have not been present had these ships never landed there. Wood attempts to refute this claim by stating that the 1619 Project authors did not take into account historical context of slavery and its role in the world. He writes that slavery was not a novel institution in the Old World nor the New World, it had been present long before the year 1619. He explains that many African tribes willing sold their people into slavery in return for goods. By this, Wood means that indentured servitude and slavery were common practice for much of history and although most would agree it is immoral, it did serve its purpose during that time. Slavery was a much different institution from the time of the Pilgrims to prior to Civil War slavery. Wood defends this further by denouncing the vernacular term “dehumanization” and its misuse in regard to treatment of black slaves. He claims that slave owners did not deny that slaves were human and that people do not need to deny someone their humanity in order to perform hateful acts towards them. 

With the inability to put history into context and the cultural landscape at the time, post-modernism takes hold in the argument of the 1619 Project. Wood defines postmodernism as the idea that all facts and truths of society are up for interpretation based on a person’s background. People who ascribe to this mentality believe there are no universal truths in the world and one’s own truth is just as valid as another’s. As we have learned from early on in the semester, intellectuals base their entire existence on finding and deducting the truth. They also pride themselves in that they frown upon ambiguity and believe all things have one meaning and one meaning only, as Gouldner describes it in Chapter 6 of his book. During our discussion with Peter Wood, he claimed that this idea of post-modernism has a Marxist edge to it in that one interpretation can be favored more heavily than another. This idea favors the interpretation made by intellectuals that the oppressed must be liberated from the shackles of society by shutting down the privileged class. In the context of the 1619 Project, recognize that black Americans and their enslaved ancestors are the foundation of our country and must be given reparations for their suffering over all others. Along with that narrative, those white Americans are the privileged class that must be shut down and provide those reparations to the oppressed class of black Americans. Those who oppose this interpretation of the 1619 Project are labeled as white supremacists and racists, as Wood points out in his book. 

Peter Wood criticizes the 1619 Project in several other manners that would be difficult to cover in this one review. He brings up five main points of contention, such as the American Revolution being fought to protect the rights of American slave owners from abolition by the British, that Lincoln was a racist whose intent was to keep blacks and whites separate, that “black Americans fought back alone”, that plantation slavery was the foundation for American capitalism, and that our nations history is best thought about as a struggle by black Americans against white supremacy. Each of these points he refutes in their own chapter by breaking down the history and context of culture during that period of American history. He disputes these claims through consultation with the Declaration of Independence and the inalienable rights each human being has, the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement that brought all races together to fight for equal rights, and that slavery did not make America wealthier in the capitalist system, it decreased GDP of all things. 

One main argument he makes throughout the book however is that the 1619 Project simply has no scholarly backing. Much of these claims made by Nikole Hannah-Jones and others were reviewed by other historians who openly stated that much of their interpretation was false and meanwhile gave no footnotes or research citations for any of their claims. As an example, Wood states that Leslie Harris, a well-versed historian on slavery and black history, distinctly told the writers they were wrong but they did nothing to change it. As a basic intellectual piece of literature this in itself should pose some concern and warrants criticism, Wood writes. Open discourse forms the groundwork for intellectual analysis of any issue as we learned from Gouldner’s piece on the Culture of Critical Discourse. There must be a level of clarity and scholarly evidence to back up a claim no matter how small. The claim must also be subject to severe scholarly scrutiny and discourse to decipher its validity and truth. Wood finishes out his book by stating that slavery is a complex issue that Americans should understand and should be discussed in schools. However, the notion of reframing an entire historical basis is not logical or practical and may lead to generations of animosity toward our country.

For my book review, I will be taking a deeper look into Peter Wood’s Novel 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project. 1620 is a critical response to The New York Times 1619 project, the goal of this project as Jake Silverstein put it in the opening remarks of the project: “The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.” While this was the goal of the articles, Woods’ goal which he successfully achieved was to take the reader through the main points of 1619 and show the historical inaccuracies and critique the work in a non-biased way. The main parts of this novel are spent looking at claims that the project made and going back to look at the historical context of the claims in the project, more specifically Wood looks at the claims by date and finds contradictions in the projects and to be effective in his rebuttable he goes to historical text himself and brings in historians to analyze the text as well. 

In this review, I do not want to solely summarize the novel but rather look at the main concepts that Wood is trying to analyze and synthesize them. A goal I also have is to not look at how Wood thinks about history because it is not something that is up for interpretation (the main point that Wood is arguing). By starting the novel with the historical background the point in which I believe that Wood is trying to make is that it is much harder to reframe the way in which we think about history. Wood uses this narrative throughout the novel but most convincingly in the first and seventh chapters. These chapters take place after 1619, in 1620 and 1621, in these two chapters Wood gives the historical context of the time period while at the same time not focusing on slavery or the black experience during that time which I did find interesting since the main topic of the 1619 project is surrounding that topic. 

 The point that Wood is making about the difficulty of reframing history holds true and he tries to prove this throughout the novel by quoting excerpts from many historical documents to refute the claims made by Nikole Hannah-Jones. The critique that I have for this aspect of the novel is that some, not all, of the historical documents that are quoted when put against parts of 1619 are slightly taken out of context. But nevertheless, they still accomplish Woods’s goals of showing some contradictions and inaccuracies in Hannah-Jones’s work, showing that while the goal of 1619 might be along the lines of history it shows more of an opinionated journalistic style. 

Some of the chapters that are worth reviewing are the ones that are in the novel placed in modern times. These chapters highlight August 2019, March 2020, January 2020, and September 2020. Wood’s use of these chapters rounds out the rest of the novel so it is not just a recount of historical events that Wood says are incorrect in 1619. In these chapters, the most important concept that Wood is showing of the present-day is the response to the 1619 project and also looking at the language that the project uses. Something that has stuck out throughout is the words that the project uses to invoke emotions, Wood highlights this “dialogue” and as he puts it is an advertisement that is “mostly of Nikole Hannah-Jones’s monologues and conversations with the like-minded.”(53) The analysis by Wood to weed out what is a conversation versus fact and what is stated on emotion as well helps his argument. This is highlighted most clearly in the chapter titled March 2020, he was writing this in July after the 1619 project was released and in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.  He continues this argument by looking at the present and seeing the emotional response to acts of racism, where Wood uses his background as an academic to see the connection between the project and these acts which he says is open for debate. 

Wood does note that the project is based on an ideology that he does not share, and in the chapter about the future he looks at how to move forward after reading. Wood spends this chapter laying out his final thoughts as a form of a conclusion, and answering larger questions about what should be done in the aftermath of the project. Something that Wood is arguing that should be done is for Americans to truly understand their history and that the 1619 project is not a viable source of this education on the topic. In this chapter, a large part of what Wood is saying is that schools should not use this as a way to teach students but rather go back to what he says is the discipline of history, a part of this chapter that I believe encapsulates the true meaning of the novel comes on page 221:

Let’s take several steps back. History is not just a collection of facts about the past, nor is it just “what happened.” The study of history has standards and approved methods. It is a discipline. It is also the way in which our civilization thinks itself into existence. By means of history, we recognize how we came to be, what we are, and why that matters. The term that contrasts most strikingly with history is mythology, that is, stories of the past that express key values but that are not grounded in fact. Humanity the world over possesses mythology, but history is a cultural rarity. 

Wood, Peter, 1953- author. 1620 : a Critical Response to the 1619 Project. New York, New York :Encounter Books, 2020.

By Wood explaining the difference between history and mythology, the main takeaway I had from this is while yes it is apparent that Wood does not agree with the majority of the 1619 project and the majority of the novel is spent looking at the inaccuracies and contradictions, Wood is making an example of the project. He makes it clear at the end of this novel that he does believe that black Americans have a right to be upset about the oppression that they have faced and that the country is responsible for its wrongdoings but people should accurately know their history and not rewrite it to fit a narrative that they want to believe.

For my book report I will be analyzing Paul Hollander’s From Benito Mussolini To Hugo Chavez: Intellectuals And A Century Of Political Hero Worship. This book evaluates how political dictators were not only popular within their own countries ,but also how they were admired by highly educated Western intellectuals. Hero worship of dictator examples that the book includes but is not limited to include: Benito Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. The overall goal of this book seeks to understand the sources of the political misjudgments and misperceptions of intellectuals to idealize dictators. It also discusses their affinity for wishful thinking and how they were influenced by the charisma of the dictators. It helps us better understand the political disposition of western intellectuals and also the personality of those political leaders who encouraged or helped design the cult surrounding their rise to dictatorship. Another goal of the book is to understand the relationship between the personal and political realms as well as the spirituality associated with  modernity.

An overarching theme that the book tackles is the “cult of personality.” It claims that we are more likely to have positive sentiments about the political system if the person that represents it has a charismatic personality. It then talks about how this admiration can turn into hero worship. He also clarifies that the intellectual class are not the only ones that have admired dictators, they were popular among ordinary people as well. Believe in a utopian social system of the future. 

A contradiction that the book tackles is: how could intellectuals that are people who value free expression admire dictators that limited free expression? Questions that the book seeks to answer: Is the admiration of dictators by intellectuals similar or different from the admiration by ordinary ppl (non-intellectuals)? Do intellectuals admire dictators because of their personality, ideas, or the political system they symbolize and represent? What particular attributes of the dictators do intellectuals find the most appealing? How do we justify the admiration of dictators in light of dissonance between their supposed commitment to free expression and the policies they pursued? How can we explain these conflicting attitudes? Do larger cultural political trends account for them or are they rooted in the nature or personality of intellectuals in their shared attributes that include ambivalence about their social role, identity problems, and an unease about being thinkers and talkers rather than doers? What is it in the nature of many intellectuals, especially the public or political intellectuals, that makes them susceptible to the appeal of dictators and the political systems they represent?

 To answer these questions one needs to recognize that they are chronically dissatisfied with their own society. Gouldner also discusses this sense of alienation in a broader social historical context. He claims that this isolation is not a recent event and has directly blocked intellectuals’ ability for upward mobility. Therefore, many Western intellectuals believed in idealized totalitarian dictatorships because they thought it would solve their identity issues and they would be more integrated into society. They yearned for guaranteed authenticity and integration and thought that these systems would achieve this. They were also influenced by their hatred of capitalism so this resulted in hero worshiping the perceived enemies of capitalism. 

A common thread among dictators was their proclaimed commitment to secular-religious beliefs. Many of their speeches had religious undertones and religion was often a source of motivation for their agendas. Crimes committed in socialism were forgiven and not punished because that would be an example of  “bad faith.”  In many cases ints and socialism fused together with religious hope. Another theme was the disillusionment with or questioning of modernity. In an attempt to rebel against modernity intellectuals sought refuge in radical alternatives that challenged modernity.

Hollander then goes on to note the similarities among facsism and communism. Both had the goal of creating a utopian society. Also much of their support came from economic difficulties and low morale after WWI. After losing the war there was a decline in social cohesion which made life seem meaningless. Another appeal was their adversity for modernity, yet there was a contradiction here.Dictators often flaunted their technological accomplishments as sources of legitimacy. Both fascist italy and nazi germany introduced economic policies that were more efficient than former policies. 

The personalities of the leaders themselves was a major reason for their success in rising to power. Charismatic leaders typically arise in times of severe political and economic crises when people are longing for a quick solution. Intellectuals were wishful thinkers who thought that these dictators were capable of producing this change. They viewed dictators as sacred and put them on a pedestal to worship them. Collins also talks about the affinity for intellectuals to view certain objects or people as sacred. He claims that intellectuals produce sacred objects in the attempt to enhance their own status in the intellectual community. I think this directly relates to how intellectuals sacralized dictators in an attempt to guarantee their own social status. 

In regards to specific dictators a lot of Hitler’s following from Western intellectuals came from the fact that he was an artist. The new position of the artist under National Socialism resonated with the longings of alienated intellectuals who dreamed of becoming integrated into a communitarian socialist society. He was also very charismatic and was able to connect to the masses and was viewed as a selfless individual trying to bring salvation to Germany. The admiration of Stalin came from his “success” with the rapid industrialization of an underdeveloped country. Unlike Hitler, he was not charismatic and rarely spoke to crowds. He resembled a father-figure and  had a remarkable ability to deceive those that he met. Westerners admired Stalin because they admired a political leader with accomplishments and personal qualities that were better than leaders in their own country. Castro appealed to the New Left because he was a young, handsome, powerful speaker, a genuine revolutionary and guerilla fighter who overthrew an oppressive government. There was a strong appeal for Castro from westerners because they considered him a victim of American imperialism. He also gained popularity in the U.S. from his famous interview with the New York Times. There was also a historical trend associated with his rise to power. By the time he rose to power the soviet system was largely discredited.

In more recent times there have been many notable new dictators that have risen to fame and performed progressive communism. North Korea specifically is developed and institutionalized with modifications of extreme quasi religious cults of its leaders. Western intellectuals have sympathy for North Korea because of the “unfriendliness” of the U.S. They also praise the alleged accomplishments of the regime such as “free education and health care to everyone.” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela became popular partly because of his close relations with Castro. He thought like other dictators that he was carrying out an earthly mission guided by a superhuman force. Westerners admire that he provided substantial economic assistance to Cuba. Yet westerners are unaware  that ~1.3 million venezuelans left the country after his rise to power. They also were unaware of serious deterioration of public safety and high crime levels. 

Overall an overarching theme of this book was the lack and resistance of knowledge of the true policies that these dictators represented. Intellectuals were  not anxious to gain access to information  that would have undermined their own beliefs. They also were influenced by their alienation from society and tendency for wishful thinking. This allowed for the persisting and predisposition to misjudge both the character and policies of these dictators throughout history.

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.

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.