Editorial Review

Editorial Review

Reviews (64)

Could Have Been Written 150 Years Ago
This book basically contains the same doomsday predictions that were given to encourage discrimination against the Irish and the Chinese in the 1800s.The predictions of certain doom never came true.They won't this time.

After decades of unprecedented immigration, what have we?We have a booming economy, the highest real per capita GDP in the history of the US and the 2nd highest in the world, a historically low rate of unemployment and productivity growing faster than even Greenspan imagined.Just how are we suffering from this immigration?Answer: we aren't.

As for the cultural effects, go to Honduras and see the larger cities peppered with McDonalds and Pizza Huts and see the young girls dressing like Britney Spears.It's quite obvious that the rest of the world is more influenced by US culture than vice versa.

And as to the cultural effects, I say, "Bring it."That's right.Bring it.Irish, bring your beer.Italians, bring your reciptes.Indians, bring your curry (but not so much).Japanese, influence us with your work ethic and team work.Germans, bring your engineering expertise.All these cultures have enhanced American culture.

When the rhetoric is removed and the actual evidence is examined, it's clear that immigration has caused no damage to the USA.On the contrary, it has made it a much better place.

Doesn't cover enough, the elephant in the room......
that nobody will mention. That being the role of organized American Jewry in spending enormous amounts of time, organization, and effort to overturn the 1924, 1952 laws and the national origins system. There should have been a better treatment of this issue in the book. Although it is argued that many groups wanted to disregard the status quo ideals in place since 1924, it was Jewry that provided the bulk of the effort, culminating in their "victory" in 1965 over White European Americans and the opening of the floodgates. How is this not emphasized more clearly? And why not? Jewry's goal was to make the USA multi-cultural, and diminish the percentages of White America, the rationale being that Jewry would be safer in a country where they were not an easily recognizable and identifiable minority. Some say that Jewry's enemy is the White (European) descended-man, and their effort to affect immigration laws to weaken the whiteness of America was no accident, and the result of much organized lobbying and sustained effort. This is critical to understanding why we are a melting pot today, and who wanted this nation to become diverse, for divide and conquer purposes.But this should have been better discussed. For this reason, I cannot give it 5 stars.

Jewry thought in 1952 that the McCarran-Walter law was only a temporary setback and they was right. Thirty years after the triumph of restrictionism, only Jewish groups remained as persistent and tenacious advocates of a multicultural America. Forty-one years after the 1924 triumph of restrictionism and the national origins provision and only 13 years after its reaffirmation with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, Jewish organizations successfully supported ending the geographically based national origins basis of immigration.

The rest they say is history.

Reviews (114)

A new perspective for Law Enforcement Intelligence.
Ms. Malkin cogently expresses her insight that law enforcement intelligence must successfully incorporate tasks, functions, and controls beginning with communication with consumers during the planning & direction phase of the intelligence cycle. Western, and particularly U.S. culture encourages personal initiative, the challenging of conventional wisdom, and the development of creative solutions to the inevitable conflicts and contradictions that occur within the competitively pressured environment of both the civilian law enforcement and military intelligence communities.

Therefore, it is incumbent on leadership steeped in personal courage to deliver intelligence products that address the internal-operational, and tactical-needs, with policymaking consumer's needs-strategic-and resolve the continuing dilemmas, inconsistencies, and subversions attributable to influences including, but not limited to, the media, special interest groups, and the changing times.

The character of the immigrant population living within our borders has changed, as has their motives for being here. Assimilation and a genuine desire to be `American' have given way to subversive and ethno-religious self-aggrandizement. A large subculture has developed whose mission is to foster their own interests, subvert the basic principles of the nation, and accomplish their aims utilizing the very freedom and rights extended to each individual by the system they seek to destroy.

This is a serious expose concerning our national character and the consequences of failing to heed the lessons of history.

More Books About Fear from the Right Wing
Once again, this immature writer, who is rather insane and paranoid, goes on to have us believe that "huge waves of terrorists are floating across the border". She writes about that deluded idea in this book, rarely mentioning any sense of truthful reporting, that the "terrorists" actually flew in quite easily and that America was not let down because of the "border" but because of the ineptness and stupidity of the FBI and CIA which spent billions on intelligence and yet could not figure that a plane could be used as a weapon. Most of the border crossings are from people who seek a better life from work across the border and there are a few petty criminals, but no terrorists would be stupid enough to cross. They infiltrate the country through normal means, any former soldier would know that, they try to blend in.

Reviews (83)

An accurate accounting
Finally someone who is not afraid to speak his mind! The foundation of this book is backed up with facts from the Koran itself. I hear all the time from people who shout and scream about Islam being a peaceful religion. Well, not according to the history books. Islam has done more harm than good. So many people like to say that Islam deserves to be respected as any other religion. Not every religion holds a school full of children hostage and blows them up. Nor do they use pregnant woman as suicide bombers.

An arguement can be made about Christianity and the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Those events came to pass because of selfish men with delusions of granduer (the Vatican did apologize for it's past crimes). However, nowhere in the Holy Bible does it emphatically advocate the killing of innocent and unarmed persons.

What's unsettling about this book is how Muslim leaders supported and pushed Adolf Hitler to exterminate the EuropeanJews during WWII to keep them from returning to Israel. We need to wake up and stop living in the land of blind, deaf and dumb. Everyday the media is sent into our homes to hoodwink us with the infamous word of the day- "insurgents".There are no insurgents, just good Muslims following in the footsteps of their beloved prophet Muhammed.

So, is Islam truly a religion of peace? Why don't you ask the victims of the Bali bombing, the families of the children who died in the schoolhouse bombing in Russia, or the victims of the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the subway system in Japan (a Japanese muslim was put to death for that crime in 2003), etc., etc. Until we wake up and put a stop to it, these crimes against the human race will continue...all in the name of Allah.

Muslim-Bashing at Its Worst
This is a Muslim-bashing at its worst.Lies, half-truths and distortions do not history or truth make.While there are some truths mentioned, most were half-baked, twisted or distorted and without the full story.
Other despicable acts mentioned are the work of evil humans who call themselves Muslim, but hardly act as Islam teaches.This is just like the Christian Crusaders, who boiled, roasted and ate babies (documented facts) on the First Crusade, the Spanish Inquisitors who tortured, maimed and killed in the name of Jesus, or Adolf Hitler and his cohorts, ostensibly Christians all, who perpetrated the most heinous crimes against humanity in recorded history.None of these acts had anything to do with what Christianity teaches either.So, why identify an entire religion with what a few of its so-called adherents did?
Interestingly enough, Muslims wouldn't dream of condemning Christianity for the acts of the Crusaders, Inquisitors, or Hitler, or anyone else.They believe that it's the individuals who are at fault, not the religion.That's how they see it.So, why can't we?If Muslims or Christians, or those from other faith traditions were to follow the teachings of their faith - so similar among all the world's major faiths world over - the world would be a much better place.
Otherwise, what the author has done here is rehash old stories that have been disproved before and added one or two new ones (with one-sided explanations).This is a book for people who want to believe the worst about Islam and Muslims.As such, it is hardly "historical," or "factual."
I've always found it interesting to see Christians so eager to attack Islam, while Muslims never attack Christianity in response.Perhaps that's because they've been told in the Qur'an not to do so, nor to argue with Christians (except kindly) and consider them closest in faith to themselves.
Some Christians, like the author of this work (if he is a Christian), all too often show Christianity at its worst.This is a trait too many Christians have shown, on behalf of Christianity, against all who disagreed with it since it became the religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century.
This is not to say Muslims haven't done bad things, or been bad people, far from it.But it does say that just as those Christians mentioned earlier who didn't follow their faith and its teachings, so some Muslims - not acting as Islam taught - have done horrific things, too.As such, they are not considered Muslims - like those who flew the hijacked planes into the Twin Towers.Knowledgeable Muslims believe they've "gone to hell in a handcart" as false martyrs.Whether or not they were actually practicing Muslims, or just using the religion as a cover for their heinous crimes as so many have done since time immemorial, will be left up to a higher authority than us to judge.
In conclusion, the publication of this book was a sad day for tolerance and understanding and, otherwise contributed nothing positive or good but only added immeasurably to ignorance about Muslims and Islam. Today, we are at war, but it's a war led by morally bankrupt and un-Christ-like neoconservative fundamentalist Christians against Islam.And this book has joined in the fray.

Michael D. Berdine, Ph.D

Reviews (16)

Wrong cause
The oppression many of us feel comes, Mr. Gottried ponderously explains, from an Orwellian therapeutic state apparatus, determined to forcefully mold its guilty subjects into a subdued, penitent mass that not only behaves with all political correctness, but thinks only the pure thoughts of the virtues of diversity and the desirability of unconstrained immigration.He correctly sees that the welfare state has now become the transformative force throughout the West, using its powerful coercive tools of affirmative action, the school system,and the penal code to force all white European societies to strive toward a sort of utopian multicultural society, where "we all just get along."

After giving many examples illustrating the trends, he launches into his explanation.As far as I can make out, his argument is that secularism has weakened Protestantism, with all its rituals of guilt, penance and salvation, which, to satisfy our innate psychological imperitives, was transformed into a public expression of expunging our historical guilts with charitable acts toward the unfortunates of the third world--especially by letting them into our territories where they have full access to the cash in our welfare system.

The truth of his observations on the prevalent trends is clear to anyone who reads a newspaper.

And, I suppose, there may be something to this theory, ably set forth in this work, but I think Mr. Gottfried is plain wrong about the cause of the trends.My own inclination is to exonerate Protestants, and instead point the finger at the dominating force of the mass media, which Gottfried almost totally ignores.I don't think he watches TV much.The government, in realistic day to day terms, hardly ever talks to me, nor do the Protestant elite, but the media hammers away at me every day.

It seems to me that Kevin MacDonald has a much firmer grip on this.Thecause is Jewish group solidarity,the tool is the media that they dominate, and their goal is weakening the West.They feel more safe and comfortable in a society with several other minoriities, rather than one with an overwhelmingly White, European culture.Pretty simple, really.

Not enough emphasis on the Jewish role
This is a good book but there is not enough emphasis on the Jewish role in the rise and spread of multiculturalism.

Gottfreid does give a reference of the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald on page 42.This is contrary to the accusation in the review above "Not for the Literate, January 10, 2003." The reference is to "Culture of Critique" 1998 by MacDonald.The entire chapter on the Jewish role in immigration policy is posted is posted on MacDonald's website which can be found using a search engine.

Another discussion of the Jewish role can be found in a review of Gottfreid's book by Sam Francis in The Occidental Quarterly summer 2003 .

Brilliant
In light of the depraved nature of American culture, it's easy for any second-hander to catalog a bunch of disparate events and ideas and package them with a littany of canned-bromides about "multiculturalism" and "political correctness."(As an example, I just read a story the other day about "ethnomathematics.")On the other hand, it takes a scholar to make sense of the intellectual trends that are dominating the Western world.

Fortunately, the paleoconservative movement has such a scholar in Dr. Paul Gottfried.Prof. Gottfried focuses on trends such as "diversity," "multiculturalism," and "sensitivity" showing that there is a theology behind them.The Christian view of sin and redemption is replaced by a secular counterpart of "insensitivity" and psychological manipulation.Based on Prof. Gottfried's approach, the desire of the left (old left and neocon "right") becomes understandable.American foreign policy (which was historically based on the idea of American interest, however misguided at times) is now focused on fighting "intolerance."The love affair of the left with immigration likewise becomes understandable.What better way to apologize for your nation's alleged sins then slowly destroying your culture through a change in the population?This fact isn't lost on European conservatives, who - as Prof. Gottfried notes - realize that these new voters aren't likely to vote conservative.

For some reason, the Jewish holocaust takes center stage in this new religion, in which both liberals and their alleged opponents seeks to draw lessons from this event.That nearly three million Poles died at the hands of the Nazis is ignored.Likewise, Stalin's murder of millions of Ukrainians in the name of egalitarianism gets short shift. Whereas people are put in jail for denying the Jewish holocaust, even mainstream publishers will print books downplaying Stalin's evils.

Prof. Gottfried breaks from standard neoconservative and paleoconservative analysis by showing that although the "sensitizing" may be carried out by the managerial class, it appears to have substantial public support.The multicultural agenda has majority support in the United Kingdom, and perhaps close to that in the United States.

Reviews (13)

The Rise of the Managerial State.
_After Liberalism:Mass Democracy in the Managerial State_ by Paul Gottfried is a very powerful and important book which shows specifically how a discontinuity existing between nineteenth century liberalism and its twentieth century version has made possible the rise of a "managerial state".Such a state has made self determination an impossibility, given the rise of a managerial elite to safeguard the public from its own "authoritarian" tendencies.Gottfried traces the corruption and discontinuity in liberalism to such figures as Jean Jacques Rousseau (who felt that man must be "forced to be free"), John Stuart Mill (who ended up advocating socialist policies), and especially John Dewey - all of whom abandoned the free market principles of original liberals.The influence of Dewey among the educational establishment cannot be underestimated.In the twentieth century the two world wars brought out a conflict between three separate types of state:the fascist state of Mussolini (which had "gone beserk" allying itself with Adolf Hitler), the communist state of Josef Stalin, and the modern managerial/welfare state brought about through New Deal legislation by FDR.During the war, the communists joined the side of the Allies and destroyed fascism, only later to die a death of their own subsequently that century.This leaves us today with the managerial state, which seeks to spread a "global democratic faith" throughout the world, while negating and containing the influences of traditional sources of community, particularly religion.The new state is pluralistic and multiculturalist (meaning that any friction that arises between different races and ethnic groups must be curtailed in alignment with the "moralistic" teachings of the managerial elite).Also, the elite seek to redistribute income by means of democracy and stoking the flames of class warfare and envy.In the United States in particular, but even more so in the European nations, the nation has been coopted by elites as a global location for massive immigration from the third world (justified by appealing to the rhetoric of "human rights", invented by the New Class precisely for this purpose).Any attempt at dissent from the dominating paradigm is shouted down as "insensitivity" or worse as outright "fascism" - a term which is consistently abused and used to stigmatize all those who adhere to traditional notions of self government.According to Gottfried, both socialist Left and neoconservative "Right" adhere strongly to these principles regarding them as near articles of faith because they allow the two dominant parties of the elite to maintain their power.Gottfried also points to a Jewish-Puritanical influence which has sought to contain dissent, particularly through moralism (which amounts to preaching an anti-racist, sensitivity-based social gospel), and shows how all beliefs contrary to this value system are deemed to be a product of "mental illness", thereby giving a therapeutic role to the elite.Such a case is particularly emblematic of Adorno's post-World War II studies in the "authoritarian personality".With the rise of political correctness in the university system, coupled with a racist national policy of affirmative action, which can be arbitrarily extended, education has been subverted and all means of dissent have been stifled.Amazingly however, the populace does not support generally the goals of the elite, which has led many who are particularly disturbed by New Class social engineering to appeal to direct democracy.Gottfried also shows how populist resistance to the managerial state has built up and found expression in movements both in the United States and Europe.For example, Gottfried cites former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who appealed to the tradition of an isolationist, nationalist "Old Right" as well as traditional Catholicism, and the National Front of Le Pen in France which sought to deal effectively with the immigration problem for France.Also, Gottfried notes that "postmodernist rightists" such as Alain de Benoist in France successful criticize the current state, despite disgusting attempts by postmodernist leftists such as Jacques Derrida to entirely censor them.Indeed, Gottfried provides several examples of precisely how "anti-hate legislation" is used as a weapon of tyranny by the elite managerial class to maintain their power.Unfortunately, while populist resistance does exist, it has also been severely marginalized.Gottfried seems unable to fully predict the future of the managerial state, though he obviously supports populist resistance and secessionary movements.One issue that remains important though I believe is not fully dealt with by Gottfried is how to rectify calls for a completely free market with cultural conservativism and restoration of tradition.Afterall, a completely free market would presumably have no restrictions on such things as drugs, abortions, pornography, or prostitution, things which would have to be prevented by appeals to traditional morality and religion.Also, it is difficult to see how such a thing could avoid falling into outright barbarism.In sum, however, while the future for democratic liberalism and self-determination looks bleak, given the rise of an elite class who intend to enforce their values on all citizens, populist resistance is possible, and is perhaps the only way towards counter-revolution.

Sobering Assessment of the Therapeutic Managerial State
Overall, this is a thoughtful and erudite work, which offers a sobering assessment of the therapeutic managerial state. First, Gottfried purports that there is such a thing and explains its evolution from the Welfare State of yesteryears. The managerial state is ruled by an entrenched oligarchy of administrative elites, judicial activists and social engineers.These for the most part unelected and unaccountable elites frequently promote economic and social policies (e.g. runaway immigration; multiculturalism) in sharp opposition to public opinion.They like progressive education proponent John Dewey hope to remold society with an egalitarian ideology, which has the effect of hyperatomizing the individual and tends to dissolute the traditional social bonds of civil society.Thus as conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet points out, the intermediary institutions between individual and state (e.g. community, church, civil associations, etc.) are weakened and destroyed in the process.The elites entrenched in the managerial state are philosophically the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill.They warmly embrace Mill's crude utilitarian ethic to legitimize their cow-prodding the citizenry through dubious social experiments and Rousseau's concept of a "general will" where the inept masses are the "forced to be free."They couple their elitism with behaviorist psychology to manipulate the masses.The locus of legitimacy that the elites cling to is the apparent absence of an organized opposition.Thus Gottfried surmises that the traditional polity of nineteenth century liberalism has been displaced by a new regime of plutocrats-social engineers, administrative elites and judicial activists-that subject the population to therapeutic rule.In their world, political opposition is frequently classified as mentally ill or sick while the masses are made victims and dependents of the managerial state.

Gottfried points out that what is today called liberalism has no fixed essence. But there exists is a great deal of discontinuity between classical liberalism, which emphasized the need to protect civil society from an encroaching and overbearing state. What passes for liberalism in the twentieth century is altogether different, hence the title of the book:"After Liberalism." The modern incarnation of liberalism perhaps may be distinguished by its other connotation of "progressivism."Gottfried tacitly traces the modern liberalism of today to the nineteenth century liberalism of John Dewey, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill.The very fact that so many early radicals called themselves liberals is how `liberalism' was perhaps "hijacked" and evolved into its present ideology.Though, Gottfried points out that one must contextualize liberalism to understand and trace its developments.

Gottfried offers an analysis of the populist right's opposition to the therapeutic state in Europe and America with a realistic look at the movement's strengths and weaknesses. He also makes clear that there is resignation of a sizable part of those ostensibly on the 'right' to the therapeutic state. The neoconservative camp composed largely of northeastern Catholics and former radical Jews from the Left, feel that the post-New Deal therapeutic state shouldn't be toppled, but we should merely utilize its machinery for purportedly 'conservative' ends. William J. Bennett endeavored to do just this as the national education czar.Since neoconservatism is the mainstream current on the `Right,' we may infer the surrender of the `right' ipso facto to the managerial state. Gottfried remains somewhat dismal about hopes for mounting opposition to the therapeutic state.In his essay, "Reconfiguring the Political Landscape," published in Spring of 1995 in Telos, Gottfried notes, "The restoration of genuine self-government requires structural decentralization and, above all, the derailing of the present political class. Without that, it is unlikely that there will be any accountability from insulated public administrators, rotating collectors of patronage, or judicial social engineers." Thus a campaign to dismantle the managerial state would require removing the entrenched elite, perhaps impeaching and replacing judicial activists on the bench and outright dismantling of various bureaucracies of the managerial state.Such a campaign would run concomitant with a restoration of the Tenth Amendment and a devolution revolution where power returns to the states.This would require us to rediscover the principle of subsidiarity, which is to say, the government that governs closest to home and to the constituent governs the best.

An indispensable guide
*After Liberalism* is the best treatment yet published of the historical deformation of liberalism -- the replacement of bourgeois classical liberalism by the managerial socialism of modern liberalism. Anyone interested in how this substitution came to pass should read Professor Gottfried's book. In fact, reading it twice would be a good idea. This is a very compact, carefully constructed work that rewards close examination.

Editorial Review

In the last half-millennium, as the noted cultural critic and historian Jacques Barzun observes, great revolutions have swept the Western world. Each has brought profound change--for instance, the remaking of the commercial and social worlds wrought by the rise of Protestantism and by the decline of hereditary monarchies. And each, Barzun hints, is too little studied or appreciated today, in a time he does not hesitate to label as decadent.

To leaf through Barzun's sweeping, densely detailed but lightly written survey of the last 500 years is to ride a whirlwind of world-changing events. Barzun ponders, for instance, the tumultuous political climate of Renaissance Italy, which yielded mayhem and chaos, but also the work of Michelangelo and Leonardo--and, he adds, the scientific foundations for today's consumer culture of boom boxes and rollerblades. He considers the 16th-century varieties of religious experimentation that arose in the wake of Martin Luther's 95 theses, some of which led to the repression of individual personality, others of which might easily have come from the "Me Decade." Along the way, he offers a miniature history of the detective novel, defends Surrealism from its detractors, and derides the rise of professional sports, packing in a wealth of learned and often barbed asides.

Editorial Review

Reviews (3)

Know Thyself
Weaver began Ideas Have Consequences with "This is another book about the dissolution of the west," but the line could just as easily have introduced Visions of Order, his take on cultural crisis. For Weaver, what was at stake in civilization was intellect, specifically an idea system called a world view. Because he saw intellect as the driving force, he directed his efforts at defining what ideas sustained a civilization and what ideas set it on decline.

In this book, Weaver set up polar opposites that often resulted in oversimplification and false dichotomy. He preferred "either-or" to "both-and" thinking. Thus he divided the world into two competing world views -- spiritual versus material -- and as he approached a topic, he placed it under the appropriate column. That kind of thinking may work for the accountant or lawyer but for the "doctor of culture" that he imagined himself to be it meant all kinds of omissions.

After defining culture, Weaver outlined some of its enemies: overemphasis of function over status, immanentizing of social forms, total war, public education, and evolution. The real enemy, though, appears to be science, which Weaver believed diminished man and his sense of himself as a spiritual being. A proponent of mind over matter, he feared science put limits on man's free will, and on his spreadsheet of values free will was a purely spiritual attribute. This sounds like the libertarian fallacy that freedom is absolute and ought never to be circumscribed. Perhaps there exists a utopia where one can do and say whatever one pleases, but I have not seen such a place.

Weaver the English professor was wrong to oppose literature to science because science is as much a part of the classical quest "to know thyself" as Pope's statement that the proper study of mankind is man. While genetics determines that there will be only one Michael Jordan, it still leaves one free to become a decent basketball player. While astronomy has judged that man is no longer the center of the universe, it has left untouched the notion that life on Earth is unique and mysterious. While neurobiology has uncovered the influence of brain chemistry on behavior, it has by no means relegated man to the status of pawn; man remains free to seek treatment and to live according to the knowledge of his limitations. Science (but not only science) could have proved to Weaver the narrowness of his entire approach: Man is not merely the sum of his ideas. Even rarer is that person who holds a rational and coherent world view.

Anyone who thinks that mystery and complexity have been diminished by science needs to take a look at the discoveries made during the past several decades in both the micro- and macro scale. Astronomy, quantum physics, and neurobiology have re-affirmed a pluralistic, mysterious universe. Rather than signal decline, these affirmations of variety could just as easily encourage prudence and humility -- and cultural invigoration. Yet Weaver remained pessimistic, convinced that every gain in science meant a corresponding loss in religion.

Weaver's dread of "machine culture" overlooked environmentalism, which existed since the turn of the century as a measured response to industrialization. Theodore Roosevelt created the national park system, Eisenhower created ANWR, Nixon created the EPA, Russell Kirk praised Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and lamented the loss of countryside ("what an age without veneration does to itself"). These were acts by conservative Republicans, but Weaver missed them too.

There is much to admire in this book: the need for equilibrium between rhetoric and dialectic; his dislike of war without limitation; and his description of the role that memory and sense of place play in identity and culture. He would have benefitted from applying the conservative's sense of proportion to his superficial critique of science.

Still about ideas
The previous reviewer writes that Weaver overlooks the fact that there are other factors besides ideas that influence culture. However, when the reviewer goes on the list these other things, it appears that they are just aspects or even synonyms of what "ideas" mean. His review, therefore, overlooks the fact that ideas have various aspects, but they are still ideas, and thus although his review betrays a lack of understanding in this area, it does not challenge Weaver's book at all.

Reviews (4)

rothbard per semper
This is the first book by Rothbard that I read, although I was already familiar with those of his writings that can be found on the Internet.

Without always agreeing completely with Rothbard - I think he has a tendency to be somewhat too consistent at times - I have always found his work to be very funny and thought-provoking. This collection contains two truly remarkable essays: "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature" and especially "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor".Rothbard actually takes the trouble to take Marxists at their word and to examine, not only the means, but also the ends.It turns out even the goals sincere Marxists fight for - as opposed to the cruel realities they have always somehow succeeded in creating - are totally at odds with human nature.

The other essays, if sometimes a tad too "American" for this European reader, live up to Rothbard's usual high standards. The only essay that I found somewhat unconvincing was "Conservation in the Free Market". Rothbard doesn't seem to have thought it important to save areas of unspoilt nature; he doesn't even examine that possibility. But then perhaps there is another essay by him somewhere in which there is an answer to that question? If so, I'm looking forward to read it!

A Rothbard Reader
Murray Rothbard was one of the most important thinkers in recent memory.He made substantial contributions to economics, political theory, social theory, history and cultural criticism.Unfortunately, there is no "Rothbard Reader" that gives the reader an overview of his contributions to all these fields.

Nonetheless, this collection of Rothbard's essays - which came out in 1974 - is probably the best place to start if you want to get an overview of Rothbard's contributions, at least in the areas of political theory, social theory, and (some) cultural criticism.(The second edition appears to be identical to the first edition, except that it contains a brief 1991 "postscript" by Rothbard and a useful introduction by Dr. David Gordon.)

The title essay - Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature - is a seminal essay.Politicians love to lecture us on the supposed equality of men; however, as Rothbard shows, it is inequality that is fundamental.The leftist drive for equality is contrary to human nature. Rothbard picks up this theme again in Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor.He shows that the drive for equality is a direct attack on the division of labor.As such, it will only serve to impoverish everyone (rich and poor alike).

This collection also contains two outstanding essays on the state: The Anatomy of the State; and War, Peace, and the State.In the second, Rothbard makes a strong case for peace and against weapons of mass destruction.

There are at least three other collections of Rothbard's works available. The first -- Making Economic Sense -- is a collection of short essays on economics.The second -- The Irrepressible Rothbard -- is a collection of his essays in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report which focus on cultural criticism.So, if you combine these works with Egalitarianism, you get a "reader" that contains 1190 pages - and you still haven't hit Rothbard the historian!That shows the tremendous breadth of his scholarship.The third is The Logic of Action I and II.These were published after his death and contain two or three of the essays in Egalitariansm and some of his later essays.In addition, they are more focused on Rothbard the economist.

But the best advice is that of Dr. Gordon: get everything you can get your hands on by Rothbard and von Mises.

A Classic and the Best Work of a Lively, Wild Genius
Never a dull moment! Rothbard was a loose cannon.A great, crazy, untamed, brilliant, passionate, wide-ranging political philosopher, intellectual historian, economist, and activist.How mant people could talk about anything from the nominal interest rate to Henry George and always make it fresh and fascinating?Read this book and meet the genius who handed Robert Nozick his famous political philosophy.

A "red diaper baby" from New York City, Rothbard must be considered, along with his two mentors Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, a founder of the "libertarian" movement, which is essentially a return to the original, pre-socialist, classical, laissez-faire liberalism of John Locke and the American Founding Fathers.

Reviews (35)

Socialism: Heaven in Heaven, Hell on Earth
This book is the result of a subject that finally needed to be published together. Socialism.
No matter what you argue, anything you think, Socialism is the most destructive and murderous thing to ever cross the minds and actions of humanity.
Soviets, China, Nazis, etc. All of them were "Socialist", or were foundded on the base of Socialism. Every country heard about has been through socialism, or has been almost made into socialist, even the USA.
The pledge of allegience, made by Socialist fathers, and the USA was intended to be socialist too, until they died.
This book also covers Mussolini and how Facism came from Socialism, at least in his case.
the "National SOCIALIST workers party" AKA NDASP, or for the name that everyone knows, NAZIS. The people at large dont know what the heck the National Socialist Workers party is, or the NDSAP ( or somthing like that its spelled). They only know the term Nazi due to likely socialist-protecting intervention.
The USSR and Asia. The ultimate examples of hell of socialism with 100 million deaths.
Socialism...Heaven in Hallucination, Hell in reality

Intriguing outline of the intellectual history of socialism
This book provides a one-stop history of socialist ideology from the French Revolution through the Blair government from the perspective of a self-described original red-diaper baby who has since rejected socialism.Although it is probably impossible to get an objective discussion of the intellectual history of socialism, this probably comes as close as anyone could get.If there were one flaw in the book, it would be the neglect of the Scandinavian experience with socialism, including its ultimate rejection by the voters in those countries (rejection?Yes.Ikea, Nokia, and Saab aren't state-owned, are they?)

I originally saw it in a bookstore and was especially surprised by the chapter on Mussolini.Apparently, Benito grew up in a socialist household, rose through the ranks of the socialist party, and broke from them in the aftermath of WWI.His father - a member of the International - named him after four different famous socialists, read Marxist texts at the dinner table every night.Young Benito was a rising star in the Italian Socialist party, edited their magazine, and eventually became a party leader.On the outbreak of WWI, Benito had the same reaction as his hero, Lenin: they both saw that the workers in various countries rejected Marx's internationalist philosophy and rushed to arms and exclaimed, "the international is dead".Benito, however, began to develop a new variation on Marxism: he believed that stronger countries oppressed weaker countries like Italy in the same way they believe that capitalists oppress workers.He believed that the entire country must rise up against the stronger nations in order to allow the workers to rise up as predicted by Marxist dogma.He also saw how camaraderie in the army was the epitome of the class solidarity they sought, and decided to pursue a strong state based on a strong, army-like command structure.You know: Fascism.Throughout his life, he continued to admire the work of Lenin and Stalin, and the feeling appears to have been mutual until he tossed in with Hitler.

The other chapters were also enlightening, but not as surprising.The failure of Owen utopianism is traced directly to Engels' appearance in his Church of Science.Engels and Marx are traced to their selected successor, Bernstein, and his observation that the Fabians' approach of reform was having the results that Marx claimed could only come about through revolution.This in turn led to a response by a young Russian named V.I. Lenin, bringing forth the theory of perpetual revolution, in which reform would be rejected and workers would be kept in a constant state of agitation.To see the outcome of that line of thought, I'd recommend the Black Book of Communism.There are also several chapters on the policies of Clements and the failure of the Socialist experiment in England, the experience of Socialism in Africa, and the fall of communism featuring Deng Xiaoping and Mikhail Gorbachev.

However, I found the chapters on the anti-socialist and anti-communist philosophies of Samuel Gompers and George Meany, and the epilogue describing the history of the kibbutzim in Israel to be the most fascinating.Despite leading the labor movement, Gompers and Meany were both strongly anti-communist and insisted that the goal of the labor movement was to negotiate for workers so that they could earn their way into the middle class.That stands in stark contrast to the union movement today, in which they are hardly distinguishable from the socialist parties.The kibbutz experience was similarly fascinating: it seems to have been successful so long as the survival of Israel hung in the balance, but has since fallen apart as younger people felt the desire for something more than working their lives away at subsistence level while giving away all privacy.They discovered that capitalism yields both individual economic results as well as moral bonuses like individual rights and privacy.

Reviews (25)

Fantastic book, curious reviews...
I actually came here to see how far the ripples from Prof. Hoppe's flap with UNLV administrators had traveled.And while it might be coincidental that the most recent reviews in close proximity to the to-do are all negative they seem at least to attempt to engage the text.

I am not a Hopp-ite but found this book one of the more enlivening conversation-starters for 21st century political thought I've read (I actually read it when it was first published, in 2001).

Just a few comments on the negative reviews then I'll add some closers.

Mr. Livermore states:

"People who think that the government or "the basic law" should control the people rather than vice versa are not "proponents of liberty" as they often call themselves. People like Hans-Hermann Hoppe are really authoritarians."

While very cheap and ad hominem-ish this does make a serious point that goes to the possible fact that Prof. Hoppe's book and over-arching edifice of thought is quite often misunderstood by those who fail to read closely.Of course since Hoppe doesn't use terminology such as "the basic law", I can't directly refute this statement.What I can do is state unequivocally that government (which is strictly defined at the beginning of the book) doing any controlling of people, under the auspices of "the basic law", or any other law, is quite the OPPOSITE of what Prof. Hoppe, anarcho-capitalist (hint, hint), believes in.

"The human rights record of monarchies is even more dismal."

This is blatantly false turpitude in debate.I will show exhibit A as World War II, locus classicus.I need not say anymore.Although I could, couldn't I?

"Currently, the republican US government keeps the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any other country in the world."

Just wanted to show what must be the reviewer's bias against anything on the right at this point.If that affects the objectivity of his entire review, you decide.Historically, before G.W. Bush was president, and some other dude was, this fact was utterable with equal truth.Yet I am no fan of Bush, and neither is Hoppe, if you need that.

Bramble goes on:

"So the alpha-people should finally abandon the beta-people to their fate and form their own society, where neither any kind of taxes, nor any kind of state nor any kind of social welfare is needed, for intelligent, hard working alpha people allegedly don't need this kind of things."

See above re misunderstanding and, in addition to that, not merely reading between the lines, but off of the page.Since there is no textual evidence to support any of these emotional claims I can only leave it at that.Oh, and this.Just because there are no "taxes", per se, does not mean that the "services" you are rendered by the forfeiture of yours would be absent, as there is no logical or practical reason to think so.Unless you would refuse to pay anything for towards roads, or police protection, or first class mail, or charitable contribution?That's your prerogative but says more about you than about the truth or falsity of Prof. Hoppe's theses.And it wasn't the message of Atlas Shrugged either.

From Ian Wright:

"How can one be a Christian anarchist and accept Hoppe's view in light of Romans 13?"

"A professor at UNLV, a public institution supported involuntarily by the taxpayer, Hoppe is a government employee and hardly a credible figure to advance the cause of libertarian statelessness."

While his critical review I enjoyed for the most part it was sprinkled with pregnant circumstantial ad hominem and awkward nonsequitur such as these.There is no proof whatsoever that someone taking advantage of his bully pulpit to espouse the virtues of liberty is inadmissible to liberty's pantheon, eo ipso, or in this case in particular.And the first claim only makes any sense whatsoever if Hoppe is required as a Christian to dogmatically adhere to every syllable and verse of the bible in the One Voice in which it's spoken.There's just no evidence.While I don't enjoy some of Prof. Hoppe's views on homosexuality (I am str8) and other minority groups based strictly on their high time preferences and superfluous ethical concerns, his case is nothing but strengthened when these types of spiteful haymakers are leveled at him and you end up on your face, off-balance and all-wet.A very poorly worked case, despite a decent grasp of the book's paramount points.

"Does the reader have a clear definition of what is meant by the state before this is brought in?"

At this point, despite some considerable evidence to the contrary, I wonder if the reviewer even read the book.Perhaps he just skimmed some chapters or speed-read.This is very clearly elaborated in the opening chapters.

Above I said that this outstanding treatise was the most provocative conversation-starter in the literature I've read since the millennium, I didn't mean that I think it's the best, and the conversations I've seen it start are much better than this.

The same idea as in Ayn Rand's "Atlas shrugged"
Hoppe's message:

Mankind can allegedly be divided into two kinds of people: alpha-people, noble individuals who never need anybody else, hard-working, responsible, intelligent enterpreneurs on the one hand and beta-people on the other hand, who are allegedly only lazy lethargic bums who depend on a welfare state and by the indirect way of elections, state and taxes allegedly parasite from the hard working, intelligent, creative, alpha-people and thus exploit them.

So the alpha-people should finally abandon the beta-people to their fate and form their own society, where neither any kind of taxes, nor any kind of state nor any kind of social welfare is needed, for intelligent, hard working alpha people allegedly don't need this kind of things.

This is the message that Ayn Rand delivered in her famous novel "Atlas Shrugged" in 1957 already, and this is basically the same idea that Hoppe propagates in his book.

Nothing new, thus.

The New Anarcho-Capitalist Masterpiece
Democracy: The God That Failed shows such clarity of thought that it is depressing to think that these ideas are on the fringe.In under 300 pages, Hans-Hermann Hoppe outlines a system of thought that provides meaning to history and sense to the world we live in.

In the first 2 chapters, Hoppe writes the clearest explanation for the Austrian theory of time preference that I've ever read.In the next few chapters, he takes this economic theory and shows how recent world history should have been entirely predictable.

By the time we're done, Hoppe has torn down any justification for the existence of the state, and explained how successful a stateless society can be.Hoppe's explanation of how the most basic government service, protection, is better provided privately, is more compelling than anything I've read by Rothbard or Friedman.

Reviews (2)

For Decentralized Politics and Private Property!
~Who Owns America: A New Declaration of Independence~ are a group of agrarians and conservative thinkers with a sobering culture critique where they advance the case for decentralised politics and widespread distribution of private property! They extoled the need for vibrant regionalism within the the nation-state. They recognized that one must surely be an Ohioan, Texan or Virginian as they are an American. This book was published in 1936 as the Great Depression become more depressing. This is the classic sequel to I'll Take My Stand, but the contributors frame their critique in national terms rather than southern sectional terms. It is an anthology that is a selection of articles and essays from various agrarian and conservative writers, mostly from