"I have some problems with this book. The book is hyperbolic with the introduction in particular laced with catastrophising, the book weaves together lurid anecdotes and states this a widespread problem but he rarely shows that they are in fact representative, often he ascribes motivations/attitudes without saying who exactly he is talking about and the books factual accuracy is suspect.

Not all is bad however, there are stronger sections within the text. In some respects this is the right-wing version of Peter Mitchell's Imperial Nostalgia, where Mitchell examined nostalgia, Murray picks up on Scruton's idea of a culture of repudiation. Both discuss Nigel Biggar from different angles, both discuss the national trust, both discuss statue toppling and are culture war tracts that overstate the importance of their subject.

His last book made an infamous error about search engines and racism yet Douglas Murray does himself no favours in his new book by relying on dubious sources without doublechecking them.
He cites Christopher Rufo repeatedly however Rufo is not great at journalism.

Case in point- Douglas falsely assets that an ethnic studies program calls for an 'counter genocide' against Christians. Had he checked he would have discovered the term 'counter genocide' was never used in the proposed curriculum at all. The term was used by the author in a different context and was being used to mean opposition to genocide.

Douglas claims that workers at Sandia National Laboratories were forced to write letters of apology to imagined women. No apology was required rather they were asked to write about the meaning of the voluntary event to them. Their evaluations were hardly negative. Additionally he claims the employees were told white make culture = KKK/ white supremacism; these associations were actually created by the employees themselves and were alongside mundane words like golf, successful, baseball, founding fathers etc. These mistakes make me seriously wonder about how accurately described the rest of the book is.

Douglas says that Arizona DoE declared in a toolkit babies can be racist by the age of 3 months. One quote from it is 'At 3 months, babies look more at faces that match the race of their caregivers'.(Kelly et al. 2005) Not as lurid is it?
It is worth noting that the quotes he mentions from the toolkit cited published research and it would have been more interesting if Murray had critically examined the research itself. Some of this research has some clear limitations (sample size/IAT) which the toolkit did not discuss critically and would have been a better example than the very short presentation.

Douglas claims John McDonnell praised Mao while in the HoC. But that incident was a joke used to attack the governments policy of selling assets to China. It obviously backfired but he was not praising or defending Mao unlike the shadow home secretary who really did defend Mao in a cringe inducing conversation.

On more disputed territory Douglas seems a touch unaware. He thinks racism is on life support in the US which to me is extremely naïve.

He says that china is currently in an opioid war on America which strikes me as being a big claim which he fails to substantiate.
He discusses how young people don't know any holocaust history yet research that looked at adults from a range of ages like Pew has shown that older US adults do not do much better only scoring slightly better on holocaust knowledge.

He says that 'few people wished to defend the maintenance of confederate statues' after the George Floyd protests erupted, yet many did defend the statues including the President of the USA.

Some other annoyances include:
I felt he sidestepped the history of native American-settler relations, yes there was unintended disease spread but there were many massacres to consider as well and he sidesteps tougher questions around Churchill and racism. I also find his moral approach to history of weighing good and bad unconvincing.

Double standards on false accusations. Murray has criticised those who have simply believed hate crime or sexual accusations. Murray has been critical of the credulous figures who accepted Carl Beeches claims or the false accusations against Bishop Bell. In this book on Jessie Smollett he writes: "But what is far more interesting is the eagerness with which his story was believed".
Yet he runs with the incendiary accusations levelled against Foucault being a sexual predator who paid children to meet him in the dead of the night in Tunisia. He writes "The usual place turned out to be the local cemetery, where Foucault would rape the children on the gravestones." This claim was made by Guy Sorman, however Sorman provided no evidence, yet Murray accepts it uncritically and runs with it. It is of course possible Guy Sorman is correct and the victims have been lost to time or do not wish to come forward, we should not discount that but using his own standards Murray has acted like those he criticises. He could have at least caveated this section to avoid the glaring double standards.

While he says criticism of the west is welcome I am sceptical. Towards the end, he bemoans how the culture has been hollowed out by religious and cultural traditions being challenged and throughout complains about being unable to enjoy the endowments of west without the endowments being criticised. The declinist attitude struck me as odd as conservatives like Murray simultaneously venerate the wests freedom and openness to critique yet seem to believe it is extremely vulnerable to being deconstructed or critically examined. To this end he fantasises about what his honest answer is to the question what is good about being white. His answer is an astonishing several pages long monologue that encapsulates the source of Murray's angst. He wants validation of the west, he wants its traditions, its history, its accomplishments to be unapologetically praised.

At times Murray is aware of the counterargument that this 'war' is overblown and asserts this not just standard culture war fare but an existential problem yet regularly he cites just a few or even a singular example as evidence or worse just rants about what 'they' think without any attribution.

I liked the use of humour in the book, It helps lighten the tone of an otherwise very negative book. The sections on cultural appropriation seemed correct to me, I dislike the movements trying to create ultra rigid barriers around cultures and insistences of cultural purity. He has cogent points here about the inconsistencies in its advocates. I liked the use of polling data on Americans and racial tensions surrounding the police and more generally. I liked several of his refutations, particularly surrounding Nicholas Ferrar and anti-Cecil Rhodes activists.

The distillation of his implicit beliefs around equality in the chapter 'gratitude' is interesting. His critique of Kendi's circular definition of racism seems correct to me and its application invites policy confusion.

It could be interesting if he wrote a book setting out his what he believes rather than a critique."

"Phenomenal! Magic! Ingenious!

Words cannot express how incredible The Future is.

The Future is a fast-paced, suspenseful read with short chapters and a version of Reddit with twists upon twists!

In this book, there are 3 billionaire tech CEO’s who are preparing to save themselves for the end of the world. But instead of allowing the wealthy to destroy the Earth, is there another solution?

According to the book, Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, CEO’s have the lowest emotional intelligence out of all job titles. Put three of them together and what will happen?

Earlier this week, I was watching a lecture about Introduction to the Theory of Literature and how to create the psychological excitement of reading. The theory is that the author needs to create suspense by walking a precarious line. If the text goes too far, the reader will be bored and overstrained. However, the readers should work hard and not be too comfortable where the text falls into a predictable and unoriginal world.

Personally, I whole-heartedly agree! That’s why I tend to enjoy more realistic fantasy.

Alderman did such an incredible job building up the world and the characters, conjuring up the realistic fantasy that I love. She has a rich world with technological advances, but she never strays very far from the path even though she could easily write 20 different novels involving all of the various characters. She doesn’t get lost in the forest.

If you enjoy Philip Pullman books, you will probably enjoy The Future as well. Even when depressing events are occurring, there is an undercurrent of optimism and hope.

In some regards, The Future also reminded me of Dune because of the community and environmental aspects.

Full disclosure: I read an ARC of The Future. There is an email address on the last page for one of the characters. Of course, being the biggest nerd in the world, I had to email the character. I actually received a reply back, and the response was incredible! It made me feel like I was in the story!

The Future is original, exciting, and pertinent.

Highly recommend to everyone!

*Thanks, Simon & Schuster, for a free copy of this book in exchange for my fair and unbiased opinion.

Connect With Me!
"

"As thoughtful persons are quite aware, there has been a lot of misinformation and outright lies thrown out by the Right as to what “liberals believe,� and when they denounce allegedly woke policies their targets are actually the kinds of information and data-based and inclusive teaching that this country needs more of.
However, and this is an important “however,� there is one aspect of what has become a central part of much of “the Left� � especially in academe � where I believe their criticism is “right on,� and it is to this identity trap that Professor Yascha Mounk tackles and rebukes in his book entitled Identity Trap.
Mounk is hardly a right-wing ideologue; in fact, he notes that he is soundly in the liberal tradition, meaning adhering to such classic liberal positions as free speech, the right of assembly, and the importance of fact-based science and teaching. Just as so much of what today’s Right is calling for � banning of books, severely restricting what and how teachers can do in their classrooms, and broad-based denouncing of all kinds of folks as left-wing dupes � is directly opposed to this liberal tradition, so also is the argument advanced by some � not, note, “all� � on the Left that to properly understand, speak to and about, and work to correct centuries of inherited injustices and biases one must be one of that oppressed and/or discriminated against group.

Here is Mounk: “In the 1960s and 1970s, a growing number of leftists argued that a theoretical commitment to universalism all too often existed alongside serious discrimination on racial or religious grounds�. Some parts of the left came to embrace the idea that the solution must lie in encouraging new forms of activism and group pride. If some people have suffered serious disadvantages because they were gay or Black, then it made sense to encourage gay or Black individuals to identify with these marginalized groups � and fight for their collective liberation.
“Over time, this perceived strategic imperative to double down on identity has morphed into new ideas about the end goals for which the left should strive�. [Parts of the progressive movement] increasingly embraced a vision of the future in which society would forever be profoundly defined by its division into distinct identity groups. If we are to ensure that each ethnic, religious, or sexual community enjoys a proportionate share of income and wealth, they argued, both private and public institutions must make the way they treat people depend on the groups to which they belong.�
This is the problem Mounk calls the “identity synthesis.�

Although what follows in the remainder of this review is a mix of Professor Mounk’s argument and my own recollections and reflections, I will try to make sure you understand which is which.

Coming of age in the �60s as I did (I was 20 in 1963), I remember well the push-pull dilemma that many Black activists voiced. On the one hand, the vast majority of Black civil rights champions integrationist policies that would end the “separate but equal� nonsense endorsed in the notorious Plessy vs. Ferguson case of the late 19th century by finally delivering on the promises of Reconstruction and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
But there was a vocal minority, too, and perhaps the person I most remember as expressing its position most clearly and powerfully was Malcolm X. He argued that Black rights were most likely to be won by Black people banding together as one people. He had had enough of fickle “white allies� who were sometimes “with us� and other times absent. “Integration,� even if possible someday, could not come about until unified Black Power won and cemented their rights as a people.
This kind of vision had been powerfully voiced 40 years earlier by Marcus Garvey as Blacks faced the unrelenting oppression and savagery of Jim Crow.

Indeed, as a young “lefty� opposed to the Vietnam War, I felt something of this tug, too. What use was there of trying to “reason� with those Americans locked into supporting the Vietnam War? The supporters of the war � who often seemed to me to be the very people who also were cool to the Civil Rights revolution � used arguments and “facts� that seemed to me to be simply wrong. On the other hand, we who opposed the war understood things very differently, and we so enjoyed meeting and talking long into the night about our principled positions. (If you detect a note of irony here, you are correct. There is nothing like getting older to put something of a tarnish on the “purity� of one’s youthful certainties!)

However, with JFK’s assassination, the murders short years later of both Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King, President Johnson � with substantial assistance from members of both parties in Congress � passed land breaking civil rights and voting rights laws that seemed at the time to have signaled the victory of those arguing for the integrationist position.

But towards the end of the 20th century, even more subgroupings of Americans � gays, transgenders, Latinos, etc. � were not only asserting their own just claims to equal rights, but vigorous scholarship was discovering fresh voices and different perspectives that shed new light on American history and on understandings of how such subgroups � also including Irish, German, Italian, and other immigrants � experienced America and on their many trails and accomplishments as well. This helped the idea of separate identity=different experiences gain new ground once again and which ultimately came to assume the identity perspective of our time.

What Mounk vigorously explores � and, as a consequence, denounces � is how this perspective has a trajectory of its own, one that leads not to a sense of all of us consisting of different colors and flavors but, rather, to unique group identities that are not really comprehensible to those outside that group. Although Mounk doesn’t argue this, I believe it was one of the forces that led to � and reinforced � the rightwing nationalist populism that has become so dominant in the US in the past 20 years. After all, if there is a unique “Black culture� why not a unique “White culture�?

As an 80-year-old man who has studied history all of my life and who, moreover, has worked and been befriended by all kinds of people of every conceivable color and persuasion, I personally can testify both to the absolute uniqueness of every individual and to the fact that it IS possible that we can come to understand and appreciate people different than ourselves.

Moreover, there is no universal Black, White, gay, or whatever experience!!! Each one of us is a very complex mix of culture, family, education, work life, and interpersonal jostling � not one of us is the same as anyone else.

And my “whiteness�? Given the ugly tone of so much that passes for “white pride� these days, I personally prefer pale face. But what of it? I was born into an Irish American family in eastern Iowa in the 1940s. I was raised and educated as a Roman Catholic in pre-Vatican II times and taught by legions of nuns and priests. In the �60s I encountered priests and nuns imbued with the civil rights and social justice causes in which I was urged to use the filter of how Jesus would view things as the measure of right and wrong, as well as the guide to what I should do (or avoid doing).

So “who� am I? To what overarching group to I belong? Moreover, does the fact that others out there are pale-faces, and/or of Irish ancestry, and/or Catholic in the social justice tradition, etc. etc. somehow can, therefore, mean that they, and only they, "know" me?

Absurd. They can probably guess some things about my background and points of view � maybe � but unless they take the time and trouble to be with me and to exchange views they cannot begin to know me. And, frankly, nor can I “know� a person I bump into just because they have the same bleached skin or had a Catholic education.

Mounk argues throughout, and concludes his book, with a powerful argument for our democratic experiment in which each of us tries to get to know and respect each other through association and cooperation, through listening and sharing, through respecting and accepting.

The alternative is a varied grouping of isolated “groups� who not only claim to have little in common, but who by making such a claim also serve to deny the unique individuality of each member of their group.

The “White� danger of such an approach can be seen in Trump’s “base� where belonging to the group supersedes everything else, including the idea of the shared commonality of equal citizenship."