Scan barcode
lukescalone's review
1.0
Really weird read. Fortunately, this is one that will be thrown into the proverbial "dustbin of history." It was only ever published as an eBook on Amazon and has since been removed from the author. Essentially, Laliberte argues that there are two ideologies: modernism and (neo)reaction. Modernism began with the Protestant Reformation, with Luther pushing for egalitariainsim in Christianity. All modern society is Modernism, and its raison d'être is egalitarianism. (Neo)Reaction is rooted in the Catholic church and is based on the salvation of the human race, which Laliberte finds is only possible through hierarchy and some nonsense Darwinian struggle between humans that raises the fittest, leaving the rest to perish.
Surely some who see this comment will criticize me of being anti-Darwin for denying the so-called differences between races and need for social Darwinism. These individuals must remember that Darwin did not argue that competition happened within a species, but between species for a suitable "niche" in the environment. Humans are fundamentally collaborative and drawing out cartoonish distinctions between "races" is ridiculous (Laliberte is one of these, who says that Arabs are "clannish," in contrast to "corporate" whites--if only Laliberte could explain the deeply cosmopolitan space that was and is the Middle East, and the deep conflicts that have been felt in former Yugoslavia and central Europe, among others).
The history in here is armchair history without nuance or clarity. Laliberte does not see the vast number of peasant revolts that have embroiled European kings and Chinese emperors during "reactionary" periods. He does not see the desire for a human community that can be found--in some way or another--throughout all of human history. For any reading this comment, this book is worth passing by. The dichotomy between Modernism and (Neo)Reaciton is nonsense and NRx is incoherent.
Surely some who see this comment will criticize me of being anti-Darwin for denying the so-called differences between races and need for social Darwinism. These individuals must remember that Darwin did not argue that competition happened within a species, but between species for a suitable "niche" in the environment. Humans are fundamentally collaborative and drawing out cartoonish distinctions between "races" is ridiculous (Laliberte is one of these, who says that Arabs are "clannish," in contrast to "corporate" whites--if only Laliberte could explain the deeply cosmopolitan space that was and is the Middle East, and the deep conflicts that have been felt in former Yugoslavia and central Europe, among others).
The history in here is armchair history without nuance or clarity. Laliberte does not see the vast number of peasant revolts that have embroiled European kings and Chinese emperors during "reactionary" periods. He does not see the desire for a human community that can be found--in some way or another--throughout all of human history. For any reading this comment, this book is worth passing by. The dichotomy between Modernism and (Neo)Reaciton is nonsense and NRx is incoherent.
ekul's review
1.0
Really weird read. Fortunately, this is one that will be thrown into the proverbial "dustbin of history." It was only ever published as an eBook on Amazon and has since been removed from the author. Essentially, Laliberte argues that there are two ideologies: modernism and (neo)reaction. Modernism began with the Protestant Reformation, with Luther pushing for egalitariainsim in Christianity. All modern society is Modernism, and its raison d'être is egalitarianism. (Neo)Reaction is rooted in the Catholic church and is based on the salvation of the human race, which Laliberte finds is only possible through hierarchy and some nonsense Darwinian struggle between humans that raises the fittest, leaving the rest to perish.
Surely some who see this comment will criticize me of being anti-Darwin for denying the so-called differences between races and need for social Darwinism. These individuals must remember that Darwin did not argue that competition happened within a species, but between species for a suitable "niche" in the environment. Humans are fundamentally collaborative and drawing out cartoonish distinctions between "races" is ridiculous (Laliberte is one of these, who says that Arabs are "clannish," in contrast to "corporate" whites--if only Laliberte could explain the deeply cosmopolitan space that was and is the Middle East, and the deep conflicts that have been felt in former Yugoslavia and central Europe, among others).
The history in here is armchair history without nuance or clarity. Laliberte does not see the vast number of peasant revolts that have embroiled European kings and Chinese emperors during "reactionary" periods. He does not see the desire for a human community that can be found--in some way or another--throughout all of human history. For any reading this comment, this book is worth passing by. The dichotomy between Modernism and (Neo)Reaciton is nonsense and NRx is incoherent.
Surely some who see this comment will criticize me of being anti-Darwin for denying the so-called differences between races and need for social Darwinism. These individuals must remember that Darwin did not argue that competition happened within a species, but between species for a suitable "niche" in the environment. Humans are fundamentally collaborative and drawing out cartoonish distinctions between "races" is ridiculous (Laliberte is one of these, who says that Arabs are "clannish," in contrast to "corporate" whites--if only Laliberte could explain the deeply cosmopolitan space that was and is the Middle East, and the deep conflicts that have been felt in former Yugoslavia and central Europe, among others).
The history in here is armchair history without nuance or clarity. Laliberte does not see the vast number of peasant revolts that have embroiled European kings and Chinese emperors during "reactionary" periods. He does not see the desire for a human community that can be found--in some way or another--throughout all of human history. For any reading this comment, this book is worth passing by. The dichotomy between Modernism and (Neo)Reaciton is nonsense and NRx is incoherent.
More...