The link at the end is helpful. There I read "Mitt Castor is the pseudonym of an MIT educator who runs the Babbling Beaver satire website." Now, I enjoy the BB's humor, but I do hope the HeterodoxSTEM decides with this one to break the mold and not publish book reviews anymore. It's much too easy to pollute the site with such reviews. Here's a one-star review of the same book by Rufo, from the Amazon website linked in the O.P. (I didn't write this review).
1.0 out of 5 stars Seems a bit shallow
Reviewed in the United States on July 19, 2023
I started reading this book because I wanted to know more about what motivates the author's anti-CRT and anti-LGBT activism (although the book seems more CRT-related), and here are my thoughts after reading the whole thing.
In my opinion the book is bad. The author has a habit of drive-by quoting the people he's talking about without explaining what they mean when, in many cases, it isn't obvious. This is something a college student does when they don't understand the material. Rather than trying to explain something he doesn't understand, he's just trying to tell a story where the people whose ideas he thinks he doesn't like look bad. Let's take the beginning of Chapter 1 for example. Imagine the next paragraph is a block quote:
"Speaking in a thick, Weimar-era German accent, Marcuse excoriated “the syndrome of late capitalism” and “the subjugation of man to the apparatus.” The audience, which included pedigreed Marxist intellectuals, counterculture artists such as Allen Ginsberg, and black militants such as Stokely Carmichael and Angela Davis, sat in hushed silence. They had gathered at the conference in order to “create a genuine revolutionary consciousness” and devise strategies for “physical and cultural ‘guerrilla warfare’”—and the old man, who wore a formal suit and peppered his conversation with references to the great philosophers of the past, seemed to hold the key to unlocking it."
First of all, I'm not sure what the professor's accent has to do anything; do most Americans know what a "Weimar-era" German accent sounds like? Secondly, the author makes this lecture sound like a religious sermon when he uses terms like "excoriate" and describes the audience as sitting "in hushed silence." (It was an academic lecture; it is not remarkable that attendees other than the lecturer were silent.) Thirdly, you can Google the title of the lecture and find the text and audio online easily; the part where Marcuse says "the syndrome of late capitalism" is like twenty minutes into the lecture. According to Marcuse, "the subjugation of man to the apparatus" is one of several things that "constitute the syndrome of late capitalism" so it's redundant to say that he "excoriates" both of them. Also he doesn't really sound angry in the audio, but Rufo makes it seem like he's totally unhinged.
At the beginning of Rufo's next paragraph he says that Marcuse "praised the hippies and the counterculture for initiating a 'sexual, moral and political rebellion.'" This happens way way later in the actual lecture, and Rufo doesn't explain how it's relevant to the main point of the lecture, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he "praises" them; if that's true it's an oversimplification of what he was saying, which really was sort of not the main point of the lecture anyway.
Later in the chapter, citing "An Essay on Liberation," Rufo writes the following thing (please imagine that it is in block quotes):
"Today, America is living inside Marcuse’s revolution. During the fever pitch of the late 1960s, Marcuse posited four key strategies for the radical Left: the revolt of the affluent white intelligentsia, the radicalization of the black “ghetto population,” the capture of public institutions, and the cultural repression of the opposition. All of these objectives have been realized to some degree . . ."
If Marcuse were alive today I don't think he would agree that "these objectives have been realized to some degree," and I also don't even think this accurately represent what he said (but I don't know if I can explain what he actually said because it's confusing). You can read An Essay on Liberation for free on the internet and see for yourself. I'm pretty sure I'm right though.
Also I think the author is trying to get us to think that the reaction to the killing of George Floyd was, for critical theorists, like that part of the beginning of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers intro where Rita Repulsa says "Ah, after ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" and maybe that's why it seems like all of the things that conservatives don't like about America started to materialize shortly after Trump's term ended, but I don't think that's what happened.
After having read the whole entire book, I think the problem with this book is that the author's real talent lies in doing the sort of thing he did in shaping the public's perception of critical race theory without really getting too specific about what it is, simply by connecting it to real things that were happening that were unpopular (but that were not "critical race theory"). Elsewhere he's rejoiced at his success in turning CRT into a four-letter word, saying the goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.'" It's incredible that one can be so open about intentionally deceiving people and still have so much influence. But I don't think this book will change much about how people think about critical theory because there are already so many conspiracy theories about this topic. In fact one of this book's flaws is probably that it's already been influenced by those; that's how it seems to me at least.
In conclusion, I don't think this book is very informative or honestly written really. If you think I'm biased, I'm capable of admitting when I think right-wing propaganda is kinda persuasive (for example stuff by Curtis Yarvin is sometimes a bit more challenging to avoid being swayed by, but I wouldn't recommend reading him either---I just have to namedrop someone to prove I'm not super-biased). If you must read this book for some reason, I think you should also check the sources Rufo cites (I think most of the Marcuse stuff is available online). I hope this review of the entire book that I read is informative and super well-written and all that stuff, and if you think I'm wrong about anything, I'm not a philosophy professor or whatever, so I'm not sure I'm 100% right on the details of why a lot of this book is wrong, but I really do think a lot of it is just not correct!
While Rufo ruffles a lot of feathers, and while many arguments against his actions theoretically hold weight, the fact he is acting to achieve pragmatic change in policy and institutional control is surely to be lauded.
Also, I don't think I have ever read a more glowing book review which, understandably, raises questions in itself.
The radical left has conquered everything through the use of a false premise that is widely believed to be true in the argument that is made by a model of a physical system, an example of which is Earth's climate system.. This premise is the axiom of probability theory called "unit measure." It is the proposition that
1 is the value of the measure of a sure event.
In reality, 0, 1 or 2 is the value of the measure of a sure event. That 0 is the value falsifies Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and "unit measure." That 2 is the value falsifies Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and "unit measure." That 1 is the value satisfies the LEM, LNC and "unit measure." To defeat the radical left, we must advise people of what is wrong with the radical left's argument. Bright ideas on how to accomplish this are required for success. If you have any such ideas please share them!
Fantastic summary, thank you!
The link at the end is helpful. There I read "Mitt Castor is the pseudonym of an MIT educator who runs the Babbling Beaver satire website." Now, I enjoy the BB's humor, but I do hope the HeterodoxSTEM decides with this one to break the mold and not publish book reviews anymore. It's much too easy to pollute the site with such reviews. Here's a one-star review of the same book by Rufo, from the Amazon website linked in the O.P. (I didn't write this review).
1.0 out of 5 stars Seems a bit shallow
Reviewed in the United States on July 19, 2023
I started reading this book because I wanted to know more about what motivates the author's anti-CRT and anti-LGBT activism (although the book seems more CRT-related), and here are my thoughts after reading the whole thing.
In my opinion the book is bad. The author has a habit of drive-by quoting the people he's talking about without explaining what they mean when, in many cases, it isn't obvious. This is something a college student does when they don't understand the material. Rather than trying to explain something he doesn't understand, he's just trying to tell a story where the people whose ideas he thinks he doesn't like look bad. Let's take the beginning of Chapter 1 for example. Imagine the next paragraph is a block quote:
"Speaking in a thick, Weimar-era German accent, Marcuse excoriated “the syndrome of late capitalism” and “the subjugation of man to the apparatus.” The audience, which included pedigreed Marxist intellectuals, counterculture artists such as Allen Ginsberg, and black militants such as Stokely Carmichael and Angela Davis, sat in hushed silence. They had gathered at the conference in order to “create a genuine revolutionary consciousness” and devise strategies for “physical and cultural ‘guerrilla warfare’”—and the old man, who wore a formal suit and peppered his conversation with references to the great philosophers of the past, seemed to hold the key to unlocking it."
First of all, I'm not sure what the professor's accent has to do anything; do most Americans know what a "Weimar-era" German accent sounds like? Secondly, the author makes this lecture sound like a religious sermon when he uses terms like "excoriate" and describes the audience as sitting "in hushed silence." (It was an academic lecture; it is not remarkable that attendees other than the lecturer were silent.) Thirdly, you can Google the title of the lecture and find the text and audio online easily; the part where Marcuse says "the syndrome of late capitalism" is like twenty minutes into the lecture. According to Marcuse, "the subjugation of man to the apparatus" is one of several things that "constitute the syndrome of late capitalism" so it's redundant to say that he "excoriates" both of them. Also he doesn't really sound angry in the audio, but Rufo makes it seem like he's totally unhinged.
At the beginning of Rufo's next paragraph he says that Marcuse "praised the hippies and the counterculture for initiating a 'sexual, moral and political rebellion.'" This happens way way later in the actual lecture, and Rufo doesn't explain how it's relevant to the main point of the lecture, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he "praises" them; if that's true it's an oversimplification of what he was saying, which really was sort of not the main point of the lecture anyway.
Later in the chapter, citing "An Essay on Liberation," Rufo writes the following thing (please imagine that it is in block quotes):
"Today, America is living inside Marcuse’s revolution. During the fever pitch of the late 1960s, Marcuse posited four key strategies for the radical Left: the revolt of the affluent white intelligentsia, the radicalization of the black “ghetto population,” the capture of public institutions, and the cultural repression of the opposition. All of these objectives have been realized to some degree . . ."
If Marcuse were alive today I don't think he would agree that "these objectives have been realized to some degree," and I also don't even think this accurately represent what he said (but I don't know if I can explain what he actually said because it's confusing). You can read An Essay on Liberation for free on the internet and see for yourself. I'm pretty sure I'm right though.
Also I think the author is trying to get us to think that the reaction to the killing of George Floyd was, for critical theorists, like that part of the beginning of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers intro where Rita Repulsa says "Ah, after ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" and maybe that's why it seems like all of the things that conservatives don't like about America started to materialize shortly after Trump's term ended, but I don't think that's what happened.
After having read the whole entire book, I think the problem with this book is that the author's real talent lies in doing the sort of thing he did in shaping the public's perception of critical race theory without really getting too specific about what it is, simply by connecting it to real things that were happening that were unpopular (but that were not "critical race theory"). Elsewhere he's rejoiced at his success in turning CRT into a four-letter word, saying the goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.'" It's incredible that one can be so open about intentionally deceiving people and still have so much influence. But I don't think this book will change much about how people think about critical theory because there are already so many conspiracy theories about this topic. In fact one of this book's flaws is probably that it's already been influenced by those; that's how it seems to me at least.
In conclusion, I don't think this book is very informative or honestly written really. If you think I'm biased, I'm capable of admitting when I think right-wing propaganda is kinda persuasive (for example stuff by Curtis Yarvin is sometimes a bit more challenging to avoid being swayed by, but I wouldn't recommend reading him either---I just have to namedrop someone to prove I'm not super-biased). If you must read this book for some reason, I think you should also check the sources Rufo cites (I think most of the Marcuse stuff is available online). I hope this review of the entire book that I read is informative and super well-written and all that stuff, and if you think I'm wrong about anything, I'm not a philosophy professor or whatever, so I'm not sure I'm 100% right on the details of why a lot of this book is wrong, but I really do think a lot of it is just not correct!
While Rufo ruffles a lot of feathers, and while many arguments against his actions theoretically hold weight, the fact he is acting to achieve pragmatic change in policy and institutional control is surely to be lauded.
Also, I don't think I have ever read a more glowing book review which, understandably, raises questions in itself.
Thanks for the piece.
Yep.
The radical left has conquered everything through the use of a false premise that is widely believed to be true in the argument that is made by a model of a physical system, an example of which is Earth's climate system.. This premise is the axiom of probability theory called "unit measure." It is the proposition that
1 is the value of the measure of a sure event.
In reality, 0, 1 or 2 is the value of the measure of a sure event. That 0 is the value falsifies Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and "unit measure." That 2 is the value falsifies Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and "unit measure." That 1 is the value satisfies the LEM, LNC and "unit measure." To defeat the radical left, we must advise people of what is wrong with the radical left's argument. Bright ideas on how to accomplish this are required for success. If you have any such ideas please share them!