I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It! Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom

by Norman G. Finkelstein

NEW E-BOOK MADE AVAILABLE 2/23/2023 Norman Finkelstein first made his name while still in graduate school when he exposed an acclaimed national bestseller as a hoax. He went on in subsequent decades to subject Israel's apologists as well as Holocaust hucksters to withering scrutiny. In his new book, Finkelstein focuses his keen forensic eye on the canonical texts of identity politics. After methodically parsing them, Finkelstein concludes that they're lacking in intellectual substance. Instead, the real purpose of identity politics is to derail a class-based movement bent on radical change. In a long, scathing chapter, Finkelstein analyzes the cult surrounding Barack Obama, which he reveals as the ultimate product of identity politics. The first Black president rose to power by having, in Obama's own cynical words, "pulled off a neat trick" by standing for nothing except his skin color. If "woke" liberals embraced him, it was because, beneath his hip veneer, Obama was a sure bet to prop up the corrupt status quo. Along the way, Finkelstein recalls his own life in radical politics and his close encounters with cancel culture, which left him unemployed and unemployable. He situates his personal story within broader debates on academic freedom and poignantly concludes that, although occasionally bitter, he harbors no regrets about the choices he made. "If I can't laugh, I don't want your revolution," Finkelstein declares. Laced with his signature wit, readers of this book will get to laugh along with him.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Essays

522 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 27, 2023

About the author

Norman Gary Finkelstein, is an American political scientist and activist. His primary fields of research are the politics of the Holocaust and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Son of a holocaust survivor, Finkelstein is a fierce critic of Israeli policy, especially toward Palestinians. He has had a tense rivalry with his pro-Israel counterpart, Alan Dershowitz. In 2007 DePaul University denied his tenure, a decision for which Dershowitz lobbied. For his views and suspected connections to anti-Zionist groups, Israel has denied Finkelstein entry and banned him from the country for a decade.

Reviews

[T · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The university's purpose is to search for truth, not the imposition of 'correct' ideas. It's also nearly impossible to physically stamp out an 'incorrect' idea, while, once gaining traction, it will spread with ease among a population ignorant of the arguments against it and consequently mentally disarmed to counter it" (421).

There is wisdom contained in this book, but much of that wisdom is doomed to fall on deaf ears, due to Norman Finkelstein's self-destructive need for controversy, and his needless drive to pull out the hatchet on his foes. Honestly, some of the language in this book wouldn't be out of place in a Dinesh D'souza book or a Breitbart article, and for the sake of fairness, I think it's only right to call it out.

Whilst Finkelstein's enemies, like anybody in the public eye, should be open to criticism, so much of it is deeply personal and unnecessary. We needn't attack the hair of Ibram X Kendi to question his corporation friendly antiracism, or lean on cruel stereotypes of the 44th President to attack the vapidity of the Obama campaign. All of this simply weakens Finkelstein's arguments, and minimises the chances of this book being taken seriously for its scholarly arguments. Now, instead, is doomed to be read as a comical and gossipy hit job.

Also, whilst I understand that the publisher of this book is a new outfit, there is no excuse for the amount of spelling errors, grammatical slip ups, and just downright ugliness of the typeset. The electronic version is literally unreadable, and the physical copy wouldn't pass for quality at any publisher worth their salt. I think Tariq Ali was correct to reject this book for publication in Verso, but I just wish that the author had taken that criticism on board and refined the book, rather than doubling down.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hillary Clinton was once a proud Goldwater girl. The last year Martin Luther King was alive, he had “a public disapproval rating of 75%.” MLK didn’t like the term Black Power, he found it too threatening to whites sitting on the fence and preferred the term Black Equality. “A slogan (like defund the police) that needs to be parsed is not a good slogan.” Note that “Defund the Police” quickly switched from “defunding the police to toppling statues and effacing murals.” “For decades, he (Noam Chomsky) was the most effectively cancelled public intellectual in the United States.” However, one year recently, the most cancelled American was Bernie Sanders.

John D. Rockefeller is responsible for the Ludlow massacre while his son Nelson Rockefeller, apparently carrying on the family name, “ordered the massacre of inmates at Attica in 1971.” Nelson officially ended up dying while looking at art books with a 25-year-old female assistant, but his grandson said the obituary should have more accurately read, “Rockefeller Blown to Death”. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes explaining why he upheld human sterilization in Buck vs. Bell case, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Justice Brandeis voted with Holmes on that case. Some early progressives sadly weren’t completely progressive – Progressive activists who also believed in eugenics included Teddy Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, Helen Keller, Bertrand Russell, Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells.

This book critically looks at the popular offerings of Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Kimberle Crenshaw, Barack Obama, Samantha Power, and Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ strong demand for Black reparations (which had no chance of making it alive through Congress) was seen by the black community as an ideal but not as important as addressing “policing, rising housing costs, livable wage employment and quality education.” An easier sale to the US electorate instead of reparations is (the Sander’s Plan) free health care, free higher education, and a living wage job. Such offerings would statistically help blacks the most while rednecks could still see it first as a (color-blind) assist for the working man. Coates (hellbent only on reparations) ignored that the Sander’s plan would help blacks the most by baiting him instead asking why Sanders attacked the “plutocracy” but not “white supremacy”? Hey, Ta-Nehisi - it’s called speaking in code, or dog whistle politics - the Sander’s plan would have helped blacks big time, by do so without shouting loudly that black advantage to racist white voters. Calculate the economic advantage of the Sander’s plan for blacks before publicly judging Sanders, Ta-Nehisi. Also, given how clueless the average American is about present racial economic inequality statistics in the US, reparations can’t be sold to the average voter in a sentence. MLK told us how early gains for blacks happened because they were largely cost free – “it didn’t cost the nation anything to integrate hotels and lunch counters. It didn’t cost the nation a penny to guarantee the right to vote.” But now MLK said is when you get real resistance, when whites will have to go beyond nodding the head and cough up some real cash to fix the economic disparity.

Norman is also not a fan of Robin DiAngelo’s book, White Fragility, noting how it “has nothing whatsoever to say about transforming institutions.” For Norman, Robin sees whites as a “homogenous master-class” with little distinction between Jeff Bezos and his average Amazon worker. Norman calls out BLM grifters (poverty pimps) who rake in big bucks selling out to the Democratic Party and getting TV spots while ignoring calls for alliance with Bernie Sanders. Norman was upset that Amy Goodman referred on air to Biden vs Sanders as two older white men, as though Amy couldn’t separate Bernie’s people-centered policies from Joe’s corporate-centered ones.

Intersectionality: Kimberle Crenshaw started the word “intersectionality” but the concept long predated Crenshaw. Well before women got the vote, it was common in socialist circles to explain how worker’s rights had to go with women’s rights and minority rights. In 1969, a SNCC paper was titled “Triple Jeopardy” and was all about black women workers. One mathematician found so many categories possible of oppression (Black, Female, Paraplegic, Lesbian, Trans, etc) which when combined generates 32,767 possible categories of oppression. Strangely Crenshaw “omits class in her discussion of oppression.” Her analysis thus “centers race and sex but erases class” which “reduces to ideology masking economic privilege.”

Ibram X. Kendi: Ibram liked Truman for desegregating the Armed Forces but shows no concern for him dropping two Atomic Bombs on Asians or presiding over anti-communist witch hunts that took out Paul Robeson and DuBois. In contrast, DuBois said of Truman “he ranks with Adolf Hitler as one of the greatest killers of our day.” “The DuBois depicted by Kendi bears tenous relationship to the real Du Bois.” Ibram fawns over war-criminal Obama’s wife Michelle by calling her “perceptive and brilliant” – two words he will never use describing Cornel West, DuBois or Robeson. While Paul Robeson stayed progressive, Eldridge “Cleaver became a far-right Republican.” Note that Ibram never once mentions Ella Baker, but instead mentions Pam Grier for her afro and reality-challenged Kanye West for showing the “raw feelings” of anti-racism. Who hears the words “nigga” and ‘bitch” in many Kanye songs and doesn’t think “anti-racism”? No doubt Ibram also loves Kanye’s cringy stalker possessiveness when he sings “I don’t feel she’s mine enough”. Kanye’s love of Donald Trump who said if slavery lasted 400 years it must have been the slave’s choice, makes one wonder if Ibram’s dictionary even explains the meaning of anti-racism. Ibram actually writes that black people are worse off today than they were before the Civil War (p.135). “Ibram X. Kendi is neither scholar nor activist. His guide to being an ‘anti-racist’ is an incoherent mishmash of woke pities” p.225). Ibram calls the Haley book ‘Roots’, “one of the most influential works of the twentieth century.” But Ibram won’t dare mention that Haley paid out $650,000 in 1978 for plagiarizing “significant passages” in Roots from a white author.

Obama: “Obama was almost certainly a beneficiary of affirmative action when Harvard Law School admitted him. His academic performance before Harvard was ‘unremarkable’.” Note that Obama has “withheld his undergraduate transcripts from inquiring biographers” and none of his undergrad teachers (not one) remember him. In a 2004 speech, Baraka Obama said, “I do believe clearly and unequivocally, I’m not in favor of gay marriage.” He also supported the death penalty. Obama “dismissed the agenda of climate activists because “having me paint doomsday scenarios was a bad electoral strategy.” Obama actually boasted that he had run as a “blank canvas upon which supporters across the ideological spectrum could project their own vision of change.”

None of Obama’s romantic attachments were with Black women but it was soon driven home, “if he was going to enter public life …he could not marry someone white.” “No one in his circle growing up noticed any race consciousness in him.” The irony was for Obama to make himself President, “he first had to make himself Black.” Cornel West called Obama the “mascot of Wall Street”. He never plays the race card because he and his writers know he’s better off never playing it. And so “he’s utterly unthreatening”. “The Obama White House assembled a stable of eight writers. All, incidentally, were white.” Obama’s inner most core were three white guys: David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe. “Obama was the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics: a deliberately blank Black slate; the blanker the better. He didn’t need to promise anything.” “If this sounds like a scam and swindle, that’s because it was.” Axelrod saw the core of Obama’s brand was his civil tone. “Change you can believe in” meant “aside from there now being a Black man in the White House – no change.” Of Obama, the massive 1,500-page bio on him concludes “the vessel was hollow.” Standing for nothing except yourself; so much for a modern-day Mr. Smith goes to Washington. If Obama cared about Blacks, he would have chosen Bernie as successor and racial inequality would be much more addressed today than with Biden in power. Aside from his skin color, drone eagerness, and happiness with having his own Kill List, Obama was politics as usual. But that didn’t stop centrist Henry Louis Gates from calling Obama “a post-modern Fredrick Douglass.” – Personally, I’d call Obama a post-modern Mike Douglas. “His intimates uniformly recalled that Obama ‘did not have a religious bone in his body’.” In Cairo in 2009 Obama told Palestinians they should “abandon violence” but said nothing critical about the far-larger problem of Israeli violence.

MLK was told to stay silent on the Vietnam War until the War on Poverty was funded but King told the concerned negro leader, “Whitney, what you are saying might get you a foundation grant, but it won’t get you into the Kingdom of Truth.” In contrast Obama was a pragmatic politician – “it was that Obama lacked any principles.” Obama actually said to Axelrod, “I’m not sold on this slogan you guys have cooked up. Change We Can Believe In. Do you really think it says enough? Nothing about the issues at all.” Obama also “recoiled” at the thought of “Yes We Can.” One wag wrote, “Yes, you could have. Yes, you might have. No, you didn’t.”

Identity Politics: The problem with “Identity Politics” and Obama is that it and he distracted voters from a class-based movement that demands “profound social change”. Identity politics is a business which divides the many in order to “enable the few.” “Identity politics is an elite contrivance to divert attention from this class chasm.” “The democratic Party weaponized identity politics to stop Bernie’s class-struggle agenda.”

Samantha Power: It is fitting that US war crime apologist Samantha Power received the 2016 Henry A. Kissinger prize from the war criminal himself. Samantha’s power is in NEVER mentioning “the suffering of victims of the US or its allies.” She bragged that Obama had blocked every Security Council resolution criticizing Israel and had giving Israel the “largest single pledge of military assistance in US history to any country.” She lobbied the UN successfully to remove Israel from the list of countries inflicting harm on children in wartime.” Power championed every human right’s cause only if it would in no way affect her standing with those who wrote her paycheck. Thus, she had no problem with kissing Saudi ass, while happily pretending the Saudis never committed human rights violations. Norman sees Power as “just another ruthless political hack” whose “principal function was to put – in the double sense – a pretty face on Obama’s foreign policy.”

On this book’s negative side (p. 369) Norman says he no longer gets calls to speak to Palestinian solidarity groups because he criticized BDS and called it “cult-like” – strangely, in this long-assed book focused on cancel culture, Norman won’t dare tell us WHY he thinks BDS is cult-like or not worthy of supporting. Translation: Norman is cancelling BDS and reducing its supporters to being little more than “cult members” (without explanation or cause) in a book theoretically written to say how stupid cancel culture is. I thought this book’s cover was ugly, and graphically confusing and the book was filled with lots of intellectual ramblings that should have been edited out, and this book had little to say about Israel’s occupation, which Norman used to be quite eloquent about. Still, I learned quite a bit, and because for me that’s what it’s all about, this was a good book. I read the paperback version NOT the Kindle version - but Goodreads doesn't list the paperback.

[Kira L'Dante · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finkelstein's Joker Arc? I'm here for it.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This current exploration by Finkelstein has as many footnotes as text. In a way that's what we would expect; a scrupulous, well researched scholarly work from one of the most formidable academics/intellectuals of my lifetime. Norman is old left, something I can still have an appreciation for, but there were times I wanted to shout, Norman we don't live in that kind of world anymore! So that was my struggle while reading this, but it was easily overlooked by the thoroughness and depth of his argument. Norman is the kind of leftist when we learned the truth about Stalin and Mao, didn't dismiss it as western propaganda, but reflected, analized and readjusted. His conclusions on how we have drifted and become more and more illiberal and regressive through identity politics and cancel culture is well examined, and something everyone should begin to examine. It's leading us to destruction, and I believe to a willing annihilation as a country and culture. Norman still believes in the left, and seems to have a willing blindness to the con played on the left by Bernie Sanders. I however can see that liberalism and most importantly leftism has failed most miserably; failed to reach anything but capitulation, and a wasteful childish simplicity. So no matter where you may fall on the political spectrum, or not at all; this is an important book for our current situation. It's something that we really all need to do, now more than ever, is to wake up to this growing cancerous tumor, become sensible and stop all this divisive schoolyard discourse that is being shoved at us by a complicit corporate media machine, before we wake up under the boot of a "well meaning" authoritarianism.

[Ruthie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is Norm Finkelstein ok? Not even a little bit. Do I disagree with much of what he says? Yes. Do I agree with most of what he says? Also yes. I may be 55% on board with his vision, but I will defend to the death Dr. Normal Tweetelstein’s right to subject readers to his weird, withering, incisive, and occasionally hilarious observations.

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Look, this book is entertaining. Though he picks on some easy prey, like Robin Diangelo and Barack Obama (the huckster, not the war criminal), I agree with a lot of his critiques of pious liberals. He peppers in loads of cringe, too, like when he spends multiple pages writing in faux Ebonics to poke fun at Diangelo’s racially-enlightened self-conception. He can be unfocused and ranting, especially when he goes off on 50 page tangents, but he is never dull. The worst part is where he brings up his bizarre suggestion that the pro life movement might one day fall on the right side of history, without ever clearly taking a side himself. What a troll! But I respect Finkelstein’s work from the past few decades, and he has plenty of reasons to be personally bitter about his dismissal from academia. This book seems like a therapeutic stab against the hypocrisies and crimes of America’s elite academic order. It’s “American Power and the New Mandarins”, but angrier, non PC, mostly personal, entirely petty, and way too long.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is probably one of the more intelligent and entertaining books I've ever read that I'd also have to characterize as bad. Tariq Ali at Verso was undoubtedly correct to not put this out, as it's a jumbled mess of a tome that is badly in need of editing. Unlike other contemporary contrarians and decriers of cancel culture and wokeness like Taibbi and Greenwald, Finkelstein's leftist convictions are not in question, however in this book he seems to want to distance himself from almost everyone who might otherwise call him a comrade, in the name of the pursuit of the abstract Truth. Considered individually, there are elements of this book that are excellent, like his critiques of Obama and his staffers or the autobiographical notes about himself, but it can be hard to find a thread to link them with the other parts of the book that engage in needless personal insults that are ocassionally hypocritical or attack ideas that have been better debunked elsewhere or aren't super relevant.

[Iker Zufiaurre · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book makes for a fetching read. As always with Finkelstein, you have to admire the level of erudition, which few can beat these days. The highlight of the book is his masterful demolition of Samantha Power's account of her term as UN ambassador. Many of his punches do unquestionably land.

On the whole, however, I would regard this as a quite silly and misguided book.

Part 2 of the book is a defense of “free speech”. The free speech questions relevant to the age we live in include: is there a moral (though obviously not a legal) right to be on platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube? If so, is there a moral right to monetize your content on these platforms? Should the utilization of these platforms be regarded as meaningful forms of expression deserving of enforced protection? About these questions Finkelstein has nothing to say, which makes part 2 almost completely irrelevant.

As for part 1, its centerpiece consists of a critique of the work of Ibram X. Kendi. I expected beforehand that it would be a satisfying read as I was predisposed (for whatever reason) to view Kendi with derision, even without having read him. Finkelstein's critique, however, turned out to be a disappointing read. I trust that Finkelstein is accurately conveying Kendi's views. On that basis, I summarize Kendi's theses, as these are described by Finkelstein:

Policies that have the effect of perpetuating racial inequality are racist policies (this being a technical, nonnormative use of the word “racist”, as Kendi explains). An anti-racist would be a person actively working to put an end to such racist policies. Since the time black Africans were brought across the Atlantic, to today's U.S., there has been no net progress in racial justice.

Finkelstein portrays these as preposterous theses. They are not. While probably challengeable, they are nonetheless perfectly coherent and reasonable theses. Kendi is by no means the first to advance them. His claims are, if anything, understated compared to the conclusions drawn by others, such as Van Gosse, who has compellingly argued that racial justice has in fact been going backward since the founding of the U.S.

Finkelstein addresses Kendi's theses not with sober and judicious critical analysis (which is what I had expected). Rather, his critique of Kendi takes a number of forms: alleging purported scholarly impropriety that in fact does not exist; apparently willfully misinterpreting Kendi's arguments; putting forth purported counterarguments that are outright fallacious; resorting to uncharitable nitpicking; putting in a heavy dose of obnoxious contrarian anti-anti-racist douchebag logic-bro talking points: (“should there be affirmative action for whites in the NBA”. Oh, you're so clever! Did you think of that all by yourself?). And then there may be a handful of shots that more less hit the mark as would be expected in a critical review of any book.

At one point, Finkelstein notes the fact already noted here, that Kendi uses the word “racist” in a technical, non-normative sense. Finkelstein objects to this on the grounds that the word carries such a negative load in ordinary discourse. This is an example of Finkelstein curiously succumbing to embarrassingly fallacious reasoning. His argument is about as logical as criticizing a study of colon cancer for describing its object of study as “colon cancer”—defined technically and non-normatively, on the grounds that it evinces a biased attitude towards its topic given that society regards colon cancer as a horrible thing.

Most objectionable in Finkelstein's attack on Kendi, however, is the vitriolic tone that is completely uncalled for. Kendi's work (again, assuming it is fairly represented by Finkelstein), while perfectly intelligible, nevertheless doesn't seem particularly deep. But when was the last time one saw something truly deep come out of the Western left-liberal intelligentsia? So why, then, does Finkelstein feel the need to direct unique vitriol at Kendi?

Because Kendi makes money off of his work, we are told. Guess who else makes money? Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore. Both of them are getting filthy rich peddling mediocre content that happens to be conducive to a GOP electoral agenda. But that does not arouse in Finkelstein the throbbing indignation he reserves for Kendi. On the contrary, he is happy to appear on their shows to schmooze.

What then explains Finkelstein's unfair, scurrilous treatment of Kendi? As unpleasant as it is to put forth this speculation, it may in fact be related to Finkelstein evincing a problematic attitude toward the topic of race. Consider the following bit of evidence:

At one point in the book, Finkelstein notes that there have been efforts to overcome racism by “proving racial equality” but these, he says, have not amounted to much, because books by people like Stephen Jay Gould are allegedly too technical and thus not genuinely persuasive. The implication—unstated to be sure but unmistakably hinted at—is that racism would somehow be justified as long as there is a failure to “prove racial equality”. Here Finkelstein is peddling truly insidious nonsense, for reasons I will now explain.

Surely no one has an obligation to “prove racial equality”. To be concrete, I would ask Finkelstein: do you think that you have an obligation to prove that you and your murdered family members are not in fact members of an evil race with a genetic predisposition toward usury, anti-social conspiracy, domination, etc? And unless you can prove that, the rest of us would be justified in fearing and hating members of your race, indeed approve of its destruction? Obviously not.

Contrary to Finkelstein's grotesque error of reasoning, the burden of proof clearly lies with whoever claims that some race is genetically inferior, for example that blacks are genetically inferior in terms of IQ. They are the ones obligated to prove their case. No one is obligated to prove that these people are not correct.

There have been attempts to prove the case, notably the book the Bell Curve. These attempts have in fact been disastrous failures, as you can learn from reading critical analysis that is not at all too technical, but rather that an intelligent layman can comprehend perfectly well and be genuinely persuaded by. No, I'm not referring to Stephen Jay Gould (the one author Finkelstein appears aware of). Rather, I would recommend e.g., Ned Block, “How Heritability Misleads about Race”, Cognition, 1995. Block shows that the Bell Curve is scientifically worthless to an extent considerably more profound than is realized even by some its harshest critics, such as Gould, who unwittingly gives it undue credit in some respects. I would urge Finkelstein to read Block's article and then come back and tell us he did not understand it. Impossible, since he is way smarter than the rest of us, and I found this to be a perfectly comprehensible article. You're trying to play dumb, Norman, but we aren't buying it!

So it's absolutely a fact that works such as the Bell Curve have been totally discredited. That still doesn't “prove racial equality” in Finkelstein's phrase. So it remains empirically possible that blacks are genetically superior to, or equal to, or inferior to whites in terms of IQ, just as it is empirically possible that Jews in fact are an evil race genetically predisposed toward usury and domination. These, along with an infinite number of other examples, are empirical possibilities, but they don't provide the slightest justification for bigotry, contrary to what is implied by the deeply fallacious manner in which Finkelstein frames his discussion. There are several other criticisms that can be made about the way in which Finkelstein discusses the topic of race and genetics, but I will put them aside.

And then there are the parts of the book that are outright cringe, as the kids say. In the course of critiquing Beverly DiAngelo, Finkelstein suddenly starts writing in mock ebonics in several pages. When he reviews insider accounts of the work of the Obama administration by some members of the president's team, Finkelstein bizarrely conjures up a theme of interracial homoeroticism. Rarely has my palm hit my face more forcefully while reading a book. Finkelstein's treatment of Obama overall, a major part of the book, while not without merit, I nevertheless found quite unsatisfying, for reasons I will put aside here.

In summary, this book is certainly worth reading (if nothing else, it has major entertainment value), but it primarily serves as an example of how even the greatest of minds can be carried away with petty, egotistical concerns to the point where they end up peddling work whose value, in the final analysis, must be judged negative.

[Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love Finkelstein, but this is a rambling, and messy, manifesto. At times he is laser focused and absolutely nails his point, and other times, he can’t help himself from vomiting on for endless pages. The crushing amount of footnotes also serve to take you out of any reading rhythm. He ends with a chapter about academic freedom that serves to defend himself, but I couldn’t find myself caring. The Obama chapter is great though.

[Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wouldn’t be caught dead in the crosshairs of this “crusty, crotchety, cantankerous, communist victim of cancel culture.” Witty and master of mockery, he also has a relentless attention to detail. His polemical and vituperative style is red meat for the tone police, but the arguments are pretty ironclad.

[Pete Judge · Rating 4 out of 5]

spends the first section of the book taking down figures from the world of identity politics in particularly aggressive style. this is very much fun to read, although very rambling- not a problem for big fans but a newcomer will be baffled

the second half is not so interesting- focusing on academic freedom. id imagine this was more interesting to read for academics- i found it a bit of a slog. he occasionally made a very insightful point.

overall a bizarre but enjoyable book

[Amid عميد · Rating 4 out of 5]

An In-depth Critique of Cancel Culture and Identity Politics

The book kicks off with an exploration into the genesis of cancel culture, suggesting it as an evolution of societal norms dictating acceptable discourse, rather than a novel occurrence. Through the lens of figures like Socrates, Jesus, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr., Finkelstein illustrates how challenging dominant norms has historically led to societal exclusion, positing these individuals as early casualties of cancel culture.

The narrative then shifts to the present, examining how identity and woke politics have permeated the Democratic Party and broader societal discourse, often overshadowing pressing systemic issues that affect the working class as a whole, regardless of identity. Finkelstein articulates a missed opportunity for substantial systemic change in the wake of George Floyd's murder, pointing out how a potential coalition for addressing systemic racism and economic inequality was sidetracked by symbolic gestures and demands less connected to systemic change.

Finkelstein addresses the concept of intersectionality, cautioning against its potential to prioritize identity over class, which could dilute efforts towards comprehensive justice. He scrutinizes the renewed calls for reparations and the media's portrayal of racial justice movements, questioning their practicality and impact on broader economic justice movements.

Delving into Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility," Finkelstein criticizes its approach for simplifying racism to an individual's psychological issue and exacerbating racial divides. Similarly, Ibram X. Kendi's works are dissected for their oversimplification and binary categorization of historical figures and concepts, which, according to Finkelstein, gloss over the complexities of racism and historical context.

Finkelstein’s critique extends to Barack Obama's presidency, suggesting its symbolic significance overshadowed substantive change and contributed to political dynamics leading to Donald Trump's election. He compares cancel culture and identity politics to McCarthyism, arguing they foster division and detract from economic justice, urging a return to class-based politics.

In part two, the discussion on Holocaust denial and academic freedom advocates for engaging with controversial opinions to debunk them, highlighting the importance of academic freedom in fostering critical thinking.

In its conclusion, the book calls for an academic environment that embraces debate and the passionate pursuit of truth, criticizing the constraints of civility in academia. Finkelstein champions a shift from identity-based divisions to a focus on collective action against systemic issues, advocating for dialogue and understanding over censorship and marginalization.

Despite its rich content and persuasive arguments, the book’s somewhat disorganized structure detracts slightly from its impact, earning it a 4-star rating.

[Ramzey · Rating 5 out of 5]

He critiques identity politics blaming it for dilluting class based solidarity and derailing the Bernie Sanders campaigns 2016 and 2020.

In part one he critiques authors such as Robin Diangelo, Kimberley creenshaw and ibram x kendi, Ta nehisi coates, Samantha Power and Obama.

He also critiques affirmative action

Part two is about academic freedom. He mentions figures like Bertrand Russell, Angela Davis, Steven Salita and himself.

I didn't agree with everything, although he writes in a funny way and made me laugh even if he used ad hominem attacks which perhaps he could have avoided.

This book was different from his other books which was only about Israels war crimes documented by human rights organisations.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The guy seems to know what he's talking about, but... wow... This book is a non-stop rant. It gets tedious at times. Only read this if you're REALLY interested in the writer or the contents of this book specifically.

[aj · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love norm as a scholar on Palestinian struggle but this book, while at times entertaining, meanders and ends with a big dump of personal grudges.
Earlier parts can be thought-provoking but he shits on easy targets, and “woke” concepts he attacks are incoherent and the wrong kind of woke.. while some of his arguments are sharp, he dismisses some (particularly on pronouns and BDS) without any arguments that he comes across as bigoted and unempathetic on these issues. I… still enjoyed it enough to finish reading through his rant.

[C. Varn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit I am confused by some of the hagiographic reviews. So, while I think Tariq Ali's insult to the book as incoherent is deeply unfair, this book did need a stronger editorial hand. The issue is that this is almost three different books, Finkelstein's takes on Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Kimberle Crenshaw, Barack Obama, Samantha Power, and Ta-Nehisi Coates are interesting. However, many of these figures, such as Coates and DiAngelo, are no longer as prominent even on the liberal left, and others such as Obama and Powers drove an identity politics of a different character. In short, this book feels more relevant to the last decade than the one it was released in. However, there are long digressions that are interesting and wise, but feel like they could have been their own books: a biography and dissection of W.E.B. Dubois, an attack of BDS which seems odd, and little discussion of how it was a lot of the pro-Zionist right that actually cancelled Finkelstein. Finkelstein is hilarious in parts of this book, and does have some real wisdom in here, but even the formatting of the book seems reflect the chaotic nature of parts of the book. Finkelstein's earlier works were important to my political formation, and there is plenty wrong with corporate-friendly anti-racism as well as the political cultures that have developed out it online and in academia, but this book is unfocused and seems a product of doubling down instead of refining an argument.

[Bob Bingham · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have read all of Norman G. Finkelstein's books and have always rated them either 4 or 5 (most were 5), so it pains me to give this one a low rating. However, the book does not live up to its subtitle, and is largely a paeon to Marxism-Socialism as espoused by the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Angela Davis, and Paul Robeson. The author repeats the same canard about capitalism voiced by progressives. He makes no mention of the burning. looting, and destruction that occurred after the death of George Floyd (preferring to call it "demonstrations"). Finkelstein also quotes Marx approvingly, such as endorsing the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Who, pray tell, determines one's ability and one's need? Oh, I forgot, the central planners (anointed ones). I recommend "When Race Trumps Merit" by Heather Mac Donald, or books by Michael Rectenwald who experienced cancel culture and is a former Marxist. Those writers do a much better job explaining the "woke" culture. Finkelstein does expose the phoniness of the Obama administration, but there are other books out there that do the same.

[Jasmine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A tour de force. I thoroughly enjoyed the utmost pettiness and scholarship this book balanced. His section on Obama is spot on, namely how the Obama presidency’s “identity politics has distracted from, and when need be, outright sabotaged a class based movement that promised profound social change.” Further, the section on the principles of teaching and the responsibilities of a professor were contemplative and fair for someone who has had their career destroyed. It’s a fantastic tongue-in-cheek title too. It’s not a 5/5 because of the length of the book and the inclusion of some stupid parts (for example, about Obama’s staffers).

[Eric Arnold · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finkelstein was mostly on point in his criticism of liberal identity politics, but the faux AAVE (for like 2 1/2 pages!!) was cringe, and early on in the book he says some things about trans people that wouldn't be out of place on the daily wire. the second half drags, starting with the Obama chapter. Still, I aspire to be as much of an erudite, witty grouch as he is when i reach his age.

[Justin Friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is interesting to see this perspective from a left wing scholar like Norman Finkelstein, he makes some very compelling arguments but some of it falls apart or succumbs to boomer-esque prejudices. I think people exaggerate those aspects tho, I feel he is ultimately approaching his arguments in good faith and from a critical perspective rather than a bigoted one

[Sem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part of me wants to be uptight and say that Norman is 'better than this' but the rest of me loves an out-of-control invective. Besides, it's worth it for the take-down of Obama even if, at other moments, I winced a little.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

Starts off good but by the end of Chapter 1 is a hard to follow rant. DNF

[Anna Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant, but too cynical. The author's cynicism makes the reader feel he doesn't not see things clearly. That said, his writing ability is incredible.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

My god does Professor Finkelstein ever have the most colossal of bones to pick. Rambling, erudite, occasionally embarrassing, and thoroughly righteous.

[Joe Sabet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any book by Norman should get 5 stars. His take in wokeism is insightful, his prose engaging, and there’s some autobiographical element worth reading.

[Ale Gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

The man’s got ideas, and if it’s the first norm book you read-this was mine-his style is a bit over the top. You get used to it. Mostly sound arguments, interesting takes, and a lot of humor.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sharp critique and very funny!

[Claire Binkley · Rating 1 out of 5]

This looked interesting, but I couldn't get into it.

[Aarav Balsu · Rating 5 out of 5]

He doesn't take any prisoners.

Medium length but fairly dense.