What do you think?
Rate this book
Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History
Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe....They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish....They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy. "That, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn't done enough for yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part -- something that we could correct.... "Our first task is therefore to try to grasp what the concept of the enemy really means. The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason, and not ours." So begins Civilization and Its Enemies, an extraordinary tour de force by America's "reigning philosopher of 9/11," Lee Harris. What Francis Fukuyama did for the end of the Cold War, Lee Harris has now done for the next great the war between the civilized world and the international terrorists who wish to destroy it. Each major turning point in our history has produced one great thinker who has been able to step back from petty disagreements and see the bigger picture -- and Lee Harris has emerged as that man for our time. He is the one who has helped make sense of the terrorists' fantasies and who forces us most strongly to confront the fact that our enemy -- for the first time in centuries -- refuses to play by any of our rules, or to think in any of our categories. We are all naturally reluctant to face a true enemy. Most of us cannot give up the myth that tolerance is the greatest of virtues and that we can somehow convert the enemy to our beliefs. Yet, as Harris's brilliant tour through the stages of civilization demonstrates, from Sparta to the French Revolution to the present, civilization depends upon brute force, properly wielded by a sovereign. Today, only America can play the role of sovereign on the world stage, by the use of force when necessary. Lee Harris's articles have been hailed by thinkers from across the spectrum. His message is an enduring one that will change the way readers think -- about the war with Iraq, about terrorism, and about our future.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2004
9 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Lee Harris
101 books78 followersA pseudonym used by Syrell Leahy.
Lee Harris is the author of the mystery novels featuring ex-nun Christine Bennett, who first appeared in The Good Friday Murder, an Edgar Award nominee. She also writes the New York Mysteries, which debuted with Murder in Hell's Kitchen. In 2001, Lee Harris received the Romantic Times magazine Career Achievement Award for her distinguished contribution to crime writing.
Lee Harris is the author of the mystery novels featuring ex-nun Christine Bennett, who first appeared in The Good Friday Murder, an Edgar Award nominee. She also writes the New York Mysteries, which debuted with Murder in Hell's Kitchen. In 2001, Lee Harris received the Romantic Times magazine Career Achievement Award for her distinguished contribution to crime writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
August 31, 2012
This book is far away from the boilerplate rhetoric generally found in right-wing polemics. Harris comes across as a classicist, philosopher and historian.
We in the West have been civilized and safe for so long that we have forgotten the concept of "the enemy". The enemy is a threat to our survival. It is a mistake to see the enemy as a rational actor. The enemy hates us for reasons that are not based on reality, but on fantasy. Therefore we cannot reason with the enemy, and must instead use force to stop him.
It is a mistake to confuse ruthlessness with desperation. Lee Harris says that ruthlessness has no root causes. In order to combat ruthlessness, we must be ruthless ourselves. Not the reason of the Enlightenment, but courage, loyalty and a code of honor are what is needed to defeat the ruthlessness of the enemy.
The enemy is motivated by fantasy. Mussolini had the fantasy of reviving the Roman Empire. Hitler had the fantasy of reviving German paganism. The jihadists have the fantasy of reviving the glory days of Islam.
The Muslims believe that the fall of the World Trade Center in 2001 proved that Allah favors the Muslims. Similarly, the gulf Arabs believe that the huge oil revenues they have received proved that Allah loves them.
We in the West have been civilized and safe for so long that we have forgotten the concept of "the enemy". The enemy is a threat to our survival. It is a mistake to see the enemy as a rational actor. The enemy hates us for reasons that are not based on reality, but on fantasy. Therefore we cannot reason with the enemy, and must instead use force to stop him.
It is a mistake to confuse ruthlessness with desperation. Lee Harris says that ruthlessness has no root causes. In order to combat ruthlessness, we must be ruthless ourselves. Not the reason of the Enlightenment, but courage, loyalty and a code of honor are what is needed to defeat the ruthlessness of the enemy.
The enemy is motivated by fantasy. Mussolini had the fantasy of reviving the Roman Empire. Hitler had the fantasy of reviving German paganism. The jihadists have the fantasy of reviving the glory days of Islam.
The Muslims believe that the fall of the World Trade Center in 2001 proved that Allah favors the Muslims. Similarly, the gulf Arabs believe that the huge oil revenues they have received proved that Allah loves them.
March 10, 2008
Unlike those who see the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as the outbreak of a new war between radical Muslims and modern Americans, Harris views those attacks as the decisive reemergence of an ancient cultural conflict stretching back to Sparta and Rome. Elaborating on three controversial articles originally appearing in Policy Review, Harris argues that terrorists struck against the U.S. not so much to wage war as to act out the histrionic script of a fantasy ideology in which religious zealotry enforces the kind of cruel tribal conformity that daring Greek and Roman thinkers long ago challenged. Though this ideology is astonishingly disconnected from economic and political realities, Harris warns that it holds real-world peril for the residents of a cosmopolitan civilization premised on freedom and tolerance. Indeed, Harris perceives profound peril for sophisticated intellectuals addicted to their own fantasies incubated not in religious fervor but rather in amnesiac utopianism. Many may complain that Harris demonizes foes he has not fully understood, but others will welcome his vigorous if contentious voice in a critically important policy debate. - ALA Booklist
October 24, 2010
This was, for me, a new way to look at world history, as not so much a clash of civilizations (although that occurs) but as a war between civilization and its opposite, which he terms ruthless gangs. He compares societies where the primary loyalty is to the family, clan, or group, and societies where loyalty is to society or "the team." This team idea arose in Sparta out of what he calls the "boy's gang" and evolved through Rome into today's liberal, capitalistic societies where hierarchy is no longer anchored in biology. He makes the point that ideals such as freedom, democracy, tolerance, etc., do not originate as someone's good idea, rather something is changing in society, is noticed, and a label is attached to it.
9/11 was not an attack on America, like say Pearl Harbor. Instead, “It was a symbolic drama, a great ritual demonstrating the power of Allah, a pageant designed to convey a message not to the American people but to the Arab world.” And, on Arab societies: “If we look at the source of Arab wealth, we find nothing that the Arabs created for themselves. Wealth has come to them by magic, much as in a story from Arabian Nights, and it allows them to live in a feudal fantasyland.”
Civilized society is vulnerable: “…the more the spirit of commerce triumphs, the closer mankind comes to dispensing with war, the nearer we approach the end of history, the greater are the rewards to those who decide to return to the path of war, and the easier it will be for them to conquer. There is nothing that can be done to change this fact; it is built into the structure of our world.” Thus, he says, America must wield its power, and he believes it can do so benignly and justly. I'm not at all sure on that, although I can think of no alternative.
One final quote:
“The logic behind this fanaticism (ie Nazism, Communism, Al Qaeda, etc) is childishly transparent: The world does not live up to my ideals of it. Therefore, it must be changed to fit these ideals. And since it is entirely the world’s fault that it does not come up to my ideals, the world is in the wrong, and my mission is to set it right by any means necessary.”
9/11 was not an attack on America, like say Pearl Harbor. Instead, “It was a symbolic drama, a great ritual demonstrating the power of Allah, a pageant designed to convey a message not to the American people but to the Arab world.” And, on Arab societies: “If we look at the source of Arab wealth, we find nothing that the Arabs created for themselves. Wealth has come to them by magic, much as in a story from Arabian Nights, and it allows them to live in a feudal fantasyland.”
Civilized society is vulnerable: “…the more the spirit of commerce triumphs, the closer mankind comes to dispensing with war, the nearer we approach the end of history, the greater are the rewards to those who decide to return to the path of war, and the easier it will be for them to conquer. There is nothing that can be done to change this fact; it is built into the structure of our world.” Thus, he says, America must wield its power, and he believes it can do so benignly and justly. I'm not at all sure on that, although I can think of no alternative.
One final quote:
“The logic behind this fanaticism (ie Nazism, Communism, Al Qaeda, etc) is childishly transparent: The world does not live up to my ideals of it. Therefore, it must be changed to fit these ideals. And since it is entirely the world’s fault that it does not come up to my ideals, the world is in the wrong, and my mission is to set it right by any means necessary.”
March 14, 2020
According to my records/notes I own a copy of this one in hard copy, but wonder if that's really true.
In any case, I gave this a four star rating back in 2012, and I'm upping it to a five-star rating just because it seems so absolutely relevant today, perhaps more so than it did the last time. Harris was driven almost certainly by the 9/11 attacks, but I pose that his scholarship on civilizations has broader implications than that, and that modern progressives ignore his warnings at their peril.
In his later chapters he captures some related prose regarding game theory ("playing chicken," for exmaple) that I have heard elsewhere and which seems so apt to the arguments he makes. I was mildly put off by his claim that Islamic fundamentalists are just adolescent Muslims with too much time on their hands, and absolutely no jobs to soak up their energies. But, the performance of these young toughs bears out a good share of his position. An extremely interesting listen. (Now, if I could just find that hard copy...:))
Having now finished it for the third, or fourth, time I find that its five-star rating is well deserved.
In any case, I gave this a four star rating back in 2012, and I'm upping it to a five-star rating just because it seems so absolutely relevant today, perhaps more so than it did the last time. Harris was driven almost certainly by the 9/11 attacks, but I pose that his scholarship on civilizations has broader implications than that, and that modern progressives ignore his warnings at their peril.
In his later chapters he captures some related prose regarding game theory ("playing chicken," for exmaple) that I have heard elsewhere and which seems so apt to the arguments he makes. I was mildly put off by his claim that Islamic fundamentalists are just adolescent Muslims with too much time on their hands, and absolutely no jobs to soak up their energies. But, the performance of these young toughs bears out a good share of his position. An extremely interesting listen. (Now, if I could just find that hard copy...:))
Having now finished it for the third, or fourth, time I find that its five-star rating is well deserved.
June 28, 2013
At first I was sympathetic with the author's viewpoint. The truth is that our society has become much too relativistic. I can state with verity that there are some cultural values that are better than others. I also agree that you can't negotiate with a terrorist organization. They don't live in or share the same worldview as rational people. The only way to interact with them is to kill them. I also agree that in our current state of civilization we have truly forgotten what it means to struggle and to have to face difficult decisions. There are no soup lines anymore...
However, his view of America as a crusading knight in white armor is jingoistic. America is not in some special position to save the world. If moral relativism is bad then cultural myopia is even worse. Americans, and by extension their government, are just as human as everyone else. While Americans may feel that our government makes decisions on a moral basis, the truth is that we have just as much desire to see our economic interests scattered throughout the world as any profit minded corporation. The truth is that we have our own religious zealots whose foreign policy goals are dictated by a 2500 year old document that doesn't even maintain internal consistency, let alone provide guidelines on how to conduct a rational foreign policy. In trust, a lot of our leaders, both in the government and those in the public sphere are guided by the same fantastical delusions that we attribute to our enemies. The only difference is that don't have the courage of their convictions to blow people up.
In short, I do not agree with the author's thesis that America is the world savior. It is only by dealing on a rational basis with those nations that are capable of it that we can we truly create a better world.
However, his view of America as a crusading knight in white armor is jingoistic. America is not in some special position to save the world. If moral relativism is bad then cultural myopia is even worse. Americans, and by extension their government, are just as human as everyone else. While Americans may feel that our government makes decisions on a moral basis, the truth is that we have just as much desire to see our economic interests scattered throughout the world as any profit minded corporation. The truth is that we have our own religious zealots whose foreign policy goals are dictated by a 2500 year old document that doesn't even maintain internal consistency, let alone provide guidelines on how to conduct a rational foreign policy. In trust, a lot of our leaders, both in the government and those in the public sphere are guided by the same fantastical delusions that we attribute to our enemies. The only difference is that don't have the courage of their convictions to blow people up.
In short, I do not agree with the author's thesis that America is the world savior. It is only by dealing on a rational basis with those nations that are capable of it that we can we truly create a better world.
September 14, 2007
It would be a pity if this book were ignored. It runs the risk of being ignored because its author thinks for himself, and deeply. Moreover, he is not afraid to follow his thought to its logical conclusions and in the process say things that will win him few enthusiastic allies. His objectivity—an almost clinical detachment at times—can be frankly appalling. The book also runs the parallel risk of not being attended with the seriousness it deserves because many of its components, whether contained in whole chapters or in extended digressions within chapters, lend themselves to a kind of intellectual surgery: the superficial reader will face the almost irresistible temptation to simply wrench from the larger whole those components which appeal to him. Some readers and critics will like certain chapters, but recoil, instinctively as it were, from the broader argument; to solve this dilemma, they may simply pretend the broader argument does not exist.
Read more here: http://www.claremont.org/publications...
Read more here: http://www.claremont.org/publications...
February 12, 2014
This author is a CONSERVATIVE who gives no quarter to naive liberals. Also, it ran 9 hours, 35 minutes; he could have gotten his point across in 35 minutes (or less). I tend to agree with his thesis, that the USA is the next stage of civilization because it's a multicultural society that is able to get along without the traditional violence or without a tyrant in charge. But...the story draaaaggs ooonnn. Read the first chapter and throw away the rest.
May 15, 2019
This is an important book, especially for people living in modern, western countries. Many of whom feel so safe and comfortable that they would discount and/or ignore the fact that there are, and have been through history, enemies who hate you for who you are, and what you represent. She dives deep into this at the beginning of the book. There's a great quote about the forgetfulness of societies, and an incredibly interesting thesis about "fantasy ideologies": Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, and Islam.
She speaks with incredible clarity about identity, tribal loyalties, and defense of society from enemies. As well as the degradation of those things under modern liberal cosmopolitanism. I was under the assumption that Lee Harris was a man, and was honestly gobsmacked when I learned that this was the pseudonym of the female author Syrell Leahy. I was so surprised because I have never heard anyone who speaks to the issues that she does in this book so clearly, male or female.
My only criticism of the book is that there was a large part in the middle that seemed very dry and tedious, where I found my attention wandering.
Overall, I would recommend this book to those interested in warfare, politics, and sociology.
Goodreads member Michael Connolly has a great review/summary of this book:
She speaks with incredible clarity about identity, tribal loyalties, and defense of society from enemies. As well as the degradation of those things under modern liberal cosmopolitanism. I was under the assumption that Lee Harris was a man, and was honestly gobsmacked when I learned that this was the pseudonym of the female author Syrell Leahy. I was so surprised because I have never heard anyone who speaks to the issues that she does in this book so clearly, male or female.
My only criticism of the book is that there was a large part in the middle that seemed very dry and tedious, where I found my attention wandering.
Overall, I would recommend this book to those interested in warfare, politics, and sociology.
Goodreads member Michael Connolly has a great review/summary of this book:
"This book is far away from the boilerplate rhetoric generally found in right-wing polemics. Harris comes across as a classicist, philosopher, and historian.
We in the West have been civilized and safe for so long that we have forgotten the concept of "the enemy". The enemy is a threat to our survival. It is a mistake to see the enemy as a rational actor. The enemy hates us for reasons that are not based on reality, but on fantasy. Therefore we cannot reason with the enemy, and must instead use force to stop him.
It is a mistake to confuse ruthlessness with desperation. Lee Harris says that ruthlessness has no root causes. In order to combat ruthlessness, we must be ruthless ourselves. Not the reason of the Enlightenment, but courage, loyalty and a code of honor are what is needed to defeat the ruthlessness of the enemy.
The enemy is motivated by fantasy. Mussolini had the fantasy of reviving the Roman Empire. Hitler had the fantasy of reviving German paganism. The jihadists have the fantasy of reviving the glory days of Islam.
The Muslims believe that the fall of the World Trade Center in 2001 proved that Allah favors the Muslims. Similarly, the Gulf Arabs believe that the huge oil revenues they have received proved that Allah loves them."
February 22, 2019
Excellent book, my bible, I read it every day.
March 21, 2020
I learned a lot and it helped me understand the world better. I don't agree with where the author takes his reasoning in the end.
April 19, 2023
DNF 40% The book is strongly biased
August 17, 2016
This book is a blunt-spoken and insightful book written shortly after 9/11 and containing striking insights concerning the class of civilizations that has marked the last fifteen years and shows no sign of abating. One of the aspects that makes this book particularly worthwhile, even if what the author says are matters many readers will not want to accept, is that the book is simultaneously a defense of Hagel's critique of abstract reason and the tendency among many intellectuals to pit the real against the ideal and to be continually dissatisfied by the real and simultaneously a Hegelian dialectic examining the two sides of enemies of civilization, both among ivory tower intellectuals without a streak of ruthlessness in self-preservation and among the ruthless terrorists who can destroy in order to enact their dark political fantasies but who have not really created anything except for misery and destruction. To be sure, the subject matter makes this a tough read, but for those with an interest in insightful political philosophy, this is an excellent book, one of the best I have read on the subject, and both intellectually satisfying as well as intensely, even ruthlessly, practical in nature.
The contents of this book are laid out in a thematic fashion with chapters of about 20 pages in length that end up being slightly more than 200 pages of core material. The chapters of the book begin by looking at the riddle of the enemy and the nature of the gamble that Western civilization made in seeking liberal democracy, before giving a firm definition of enemy and the grand illusion of political fantasy that unites terrorists and many intellectuals. After this, Harris speaks of ruthlessness at the origin of civilizations, the birth of patriotism and the historic role of the United States, before a thoughtful contrast between liberal and team cosmopolitanism, the way that reason goes wrong, a case study of tolerance, the origin of the enemy, the rare virtues of the West in the course of global history, and a conclusion on the next stage of history. The book is, as a whole, a brave exploration of self-deception and illusion, and a recognition of the delicate tension between family and team, between civility and ruthlessness, between intellect and pragmatism, that is required to remain free in a world full of violence, and the difficulty societies have in achieving and maintaining this balance.
Given the author's relentless push in terms of practically directed reason, it is of little surprise that this book should be so widely practical for those readers who are willing to read a passionate Hegelian dialectic that aims at equipping its readers with the ruthlessness to help aid the survival of the West against its enemies, and to have the sort of respect and regard for institutions that allows for the preservation and improvement of society. The author has set before him a difficult task, in giving readers valuable insight into what makes people enemies, and what has to be done with those who do not wish to play well with others. As someone who has often tended to be an outsider, and someone who has tended to be forced into situations where a certain degree of ruthlessness was required for survival, this book was more like a theoretical examination of something that I had already worked out in a less concise and pointed fashion from my own experience and broad reading and native temperament. Of particular importance if the author's reminder that tolerance, a key aspect of contemporary discourse [1] came out of the experience by which everyone was tolerated who was willing to tolerate others.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
The contents of this book are laid out in a thematic fashion with chapters of about 20 pages in length that end up being slightly more than 200 pages of core material. The chapters of the book begin by looking at the riddle of the enemy and the nature of the gamble that Western civilization made in seeking liberal democracy, before giving a firm definition of enemy and the grand illusion of political fantasy that unites terrorists and many intellectuals. After this, Harris speaks of ruthlessness at the origin of civilizations, the birth of patriotism and the historic role of the United States, before a thoughtful contrast between liberal and team cosmopolitanism, the way that reason goes wrong, a case study of tolerance, the origin of the enemy, the rare virtues of the West in the course of global history, and a conclusion on the next stage of history. The book is, as a whole, a brave exploration of self-deception and illusion, and a recognition of the delicate tension between family and team, between civility and ruthlessness, between intellect and pragmatism, that is required to remain free in a world full of violence, and the difficulty societies have in achieving and maintaining this balance.
Given the author's relentless push in terms of practically directed reason, it is of little surprise that this book should be so widely practical for those readers who are willing to read a passionate Hegelian dialectic that aims at equipping its readers with the ruthlessness to help aid the survival of the West against its enemies, and to have the sort of respect and regard for institutions that allows for the preservation and improvement of society. The author has set before him a difficult task, in giving readers valuable insight into what makes people enemies, and what has to be done with those who do not wish to play well with others. As someone who has often tended to be an outsider, and someone who has tended to be forced into situations where a certain degree of ruthlessness was required for survival, this book was more like a theoretical examination of something that I had already worked out in a less concise and pointed fashion from my own experience and broad reading and native temperament. Of particular importance if the author's reminder that tolerance, a key aspect of contemporary discourse [1] came out of the experience by which everyone was tolerated who was willing to tolerate others.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
July 2, 2011
This book was both interesting, original, and somewhat frustrating. It was one of those that made me wish I could give half stars, because I think it deserves three and a half stars. The book begins with a chapter on the 9/11 attacks, and how they represented an attack on civilization itself. The author spends the next several chapters on a history of civilization. However, he never brings the argument full circle, so the book feels like two long, unrelated articles as opposed to a coherent whole.
I thought Harris' discussion of the origins and development of civilization was very good. It was also accessible to the non-academic, albeit being written in a very philosophical way. This is unusual for political theory, which is generally based on all kinds of unsupported assumptions that are never critically engaged. I also liked Harris' description of the fantasy ideologies; I thought this was one of the better explanations of al-Qaeda that I've heard.
However, Harris falters when he tries to make the argument that Arabs are uniquely given to fantasy ideologies because of their cultural and economic background. He makes this argument, and then in the next chapter, he discusses the fantasy ideolgies of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, never explaining how the countries that succommed to these ideologies had anything in common with modern Arabs. This greatly weakened the book in my view. In addition, he takes the most extreme form of anti-Western jihadism (exemplified by al-Qaeda) and accepts it as representative of the beliefs of large parts of the Islamic world, despite the evidence to the contrary. In doing this, he sets up a straw man, and neglects to look at the actual beliefs (both good and bad) of the vast majority of inhabitants of the Muslim world.
I thought Harris' discussion of the origins and development of civilization was very good. It was also accessible to the non-academic, albeit being written in a very philosophical way. This is unusual for political theory, which is generally based on all kinds of unsupported assumptions that are never critically engaged. I also liked Harris' description of the fantasy ideologies; I thought this was one of the better explanations of al-Qaeda that I've heard.
However, Harris falters when he tries to make the argument that Arabs are uniquely given to fantasy ideologies because of their cultural and economic background. He makes this argument, and then in the next chapter, he discusses the fantasy ideolgies of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, never explaining how the countries that succommed to these ideologies had anything in common with modern Arabs. This greatly weakened the book in my view. In addition, he takes the most extreme form of anti-Western jihadism (exemplified by al-Qaeda) and accepts it as representative of the beliefs of large parts of the Islamic world, despite the evidence to the contrary. In doing this, he sets up a straw man, and neglects to look at the actual beliefs (both good and bad) of the vast majority of inhabitants of the Muslim world.
November 11, 2014
Probably the most convincing piece of conservative literature I've ever read. Harris puts his subjects in ways I've never thought to think of them. However, the whole thing seems to veer off on a tangent or two while also become a little repetitive after awhile. Not the book I was expecting, but a good book all the same.
June 27, 2008
This is a very interesting book. It's pretty philosophical, though. And the author assumes that the reader has read up on all their philosophers, which led to me muddling through large sections. It's definitely a thinking book.
November 21, 2012
Why did it feel like extreme ranting, pro-war propaganda?
May 16, 2014
The author attempts to justify outright bigotry and racism by glorifying American military imperialism and labeling every Muslim on the planet as our "enemy". This book was incredibly disappointing.
March 2, 2015
Harris claims we are forgetting our cultural heritage at our peril. The gang makeup of Sparta is to be our fate if we do not acknowledge that there even IS an enemy.
January 23, 2016
One of the few books that provided me a whole new perspective on international relations.
January 26, 2009
Suggested by a friend.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews