Leo Strauss is of course the founder of the Straussians, Wolfowitz, the whole Kagan family, Nuland, and so on.
Essentially the source of the neo-con thinking which has lead to such horrendous US policies and in particular Iran, Syria, Gaza West Bank, Libya, Lebanon. Countless people living in mayhem because of neocon policies.
The seed of modern evil (and the reason why US is so isolated and hated throughout the wider world).
Con Coughlin’s Assad: Triumph of Tyranny (2024) is a remarkable and truly gripping book by a veteran British war correspondent who has visited Syria many times, was nearly captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and has already written biographies of Assad’s fellow-tyrants Ayatollah Khomeini (2010) and Saddam Hussein (2005), with whom Assad clearly has a good deal of traits in common. Coughlin gets right deep inside the warped personality of one of the most evil men on the planet."
What great timing. Just as the media is instructed to re-write the history of Syria again so as to permit the west to annoint an out and out terrorist as President of Syria (still with a $10m bounty on his head).
Decades of cruel Sanctions and funding of "moderate" rebels along with israel and Turkey are suddenly forgotten as we fake another victory for "democracy".
2005 was peak Saddam nonsense too. He was the guy we supported when using Chemical Weapons on Iran. When Iraqi fighters attacked a US ship in the Med, Saddam publicly apologised, but media were told to ignore it as US blamed Iran and used it as an excuse for extra sanctions on Iran to demonstrate their support for Iraq in their war.
Congratulations on the mention. I've always thought that these end-of-year book recommendations should focus on books published during the year (like yours). Otherwise one gets random endorsements of books that the contributors happened to have read lately (e.g. I would recommend Nabokov's The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Houllebecq's The Elementary Particles/Atomised, and Elmore Leonard's Raylan Givens books on the one hand since I just read them, and Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy on the other since I just taught those). And, of course, since the Claremont Review is run by Straussians, one gets the obligatory obeisance at the alter several times over, even though he's been dead for fifty years and no one reads him other than his epigoni (if my recommendations were to run like the Straussians, I'd be recommending Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and Oakeshott's On Human Conduct and Rationalism in Politics each year).
Carl Schmitt is a moral agnostic posing as a post-catholic integrist. Some even say he enjoyed providing legal justifications for murderous lust, because he could. You know what he says: "The sovereign is he who can declare the state of exception" and even more profoundly "Der Führer schützt das Recht" - it is the Führer who upholds the law. Based on Schmitt, one would say the Romanian supreme court is the Romanian sovereign. Nu, what more can one say? The only good thing one can mention of Carl Schmitt is that he wrote a recommendation for Leo Strauss when it counted.
Schmitt wrote a good deal about populism, though he didn't use that exact term. For example, in writing about democracy, Schmitt claimed that democracy is the rule of the people, but, before the people can rule, the people must distinguish between themselves and foreigners (the famous friend/enemy distinction that Schmitt claimed was the primary political act). Once that distinction is made, however, it is still not clear exactly how the people's will can be calculated. According to Schmitt, the most common way, majoritarianism, means not rule of/by the people, but rule of/by the majority of the people. Since the minority must be understood to be 'wrong' in some way (i.e. they don't know the authentic will of the people), it brings out the possibility that the majority itself might be wrong. So, according to Schmitt, minoritarian democracy makes perfect sense, and, since this minority might be wrong as well, rule by one person isn't necessarily anti-democratic, since the one person might personify the will of the people better than the people themselves (this was pre-Nazi rule, so his primary example was Mussolini). I'm not at all suggesting that Trump is il Duce, but Schmitt would certainly agree with the notion that the rise of Trump and Trumpism is an exemplary case of democracy (as he understood it) in action.
I wasn't attempting to defend Schmitt. I was merely paraphrasing his argument, and it was an argument used not only by Mussolini and Hitler, but also by all of the various 'People's Democracies' of the Soviet Era.
On a different note, the classical Greeks, who invented democracy, would find our current usage of the term to be a 'destruction of the meaning of words', as well. Were Aristotle around today, he would classify our (Western liberal democratic) form of government as a mixture of aristocracy and oligarchy. The only truly democratic institution (in the Greek sense of the term) in the US these days is the jury system.
I said specifically that the destruction of the meaning of words that Schmitt engaged in didn't make me want to read HIM, so whether you were defending him or not is neither here nor there.
And the franchise in Athens was more limited than the franchise is in the USA so if Aristotle would say that then Aristotle would be wrong.
Of course translating votes into governmental policy is always problematic but that was true in Athenian "democracy" as well.
The jury system is not terribly democratic. As a juror you are pretty completely under the apparatchik thumb, the Penny and Zimmerman trials notwithstanding..
Is Andrew Roberts (a Churchill biographer) serious, with this line about a book getting "inside the warped personality of [Bashar Assad,] one of the most evil men on the planet"?
When was that written? When printed? Bashing Assad as "the most evil man on the planet" sounds little ridiculous, certainly so at this point in mid-December 2024.
Yeah that was jarring for me as well. The ranks of Bashar's political opposition include a number of people quite willing to burn their infidel countrymen alive. And don't get me started on the "chlorine barrel bombs."
I've been following the lies about Syria and Assad ever since about 2013. Barely a true thing has been said. Not least there is no civil war as almost all the so called rebels are both mercenaries and foreign, including some 10,000 Ujghurs coralled out of China via US intelligence services via Turkey.
Were we being told truths about Assad before 2013? Conceivably, but it seems extremely unlikely.
"...almost all the so called rebels are both mercenaries and foreign, including some 10,000 Ujghurs coralled out of China via US intelligence services via Turkey."
droy said 5-10,000 Ujigers earlier, but also said 30,000 was credible, but without a link he's just making things up. He also insists that of the two named (by Wikipedia) leaders of HTS only one is "Syrian", though which one isn't Syrian he doesn't make clear. He's got a dog in this fight somehow (it appear to be Assad) and truth is no object in his propaganda.
How about Andrew Phillips says it is wrong - where is your problem with that?
Where are your balls?
What kind of wimp are you that you chase someone around substack just to say "where is the proof" for things you should know full well and are unable to actually deny?
and FFS google Ujghurs in Syria if you give a damn about the topic.
Google it yourself and try to come up with something from a credible source that supports your claims. You never do, so the proper conclusion after all this experience with you and a more and more extensive encounter with the evidence that doesn't support what you say is that you're making it up.
Still waiting for your explanation of why one of the two top HTS leaders (which one?) listed by Wikipedia is not Syrian.
Or, for that matter, why RFKJr is "anti-vax" when he says he's not and that he is fully vaccinated. Oh, yeah, you said he's crazy, but from you that isn't worth shit.
And sorry to crush your self importance, you contemptible little weenie, but I've been participating in Steve Sailer comment threads since long before you showed up to enturd the place.
Is that a statement that there are no ujghurs in Ukraine?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh no, you don't actually say anything again. Such a shame.
You toned down the out and out insults at least. well done.
Meanwhile the whole world is learning just what HTS is made of - it is even making mainstream media. Given it another 10 years and you'll drop the subject.
Western idealism and its good guy ("us") vs. bad guy ("Hitler") analysis doesn't really apply.
The Kurds are inbred and unpopular, like the Kosovars. The Sunni are uncouth rabble who breed like rabbits. There are 1 million Alawites and 20,000 Christians and those are probably the only two groups with high enough IQ and Greek/European admixture for anything like non-chaotic, secular, republican rule.
You and I have lived our whole lives in Anglo-European republics with nuclear families, where the right side IQ tail starts at 100. Imagine a country with a median IQ around 80 - 85, fatalistic religion, clannishness, honor culture, and no communitarian sense. You would be one ruthless, authoritarian, MFer, or you'd leave. Or you'd just leave period.
Good and bad isn't the proper frame. The Syrians are what they are and cannot be anything else. A secular, authoritarian Alawite like Assad is as good as it gets for them. Can you imagine the typical suburban goober US or Canadian politician trying to govern the place?
Paul Kagame is the best thing to ever happen to Rwanda, and his personal army killed a lot of people to make it so. The Egyptian junta got tired of the Muslim Brotherhood and its parliamentary majority burning other Egyptians alive, so they overthrew the democratic government and threw its leadership in prison.
The Anglosphere needs to get over this view of itself as the World's School Marm.
Con Coughlin is a defence journalist and, like all his trade, takes the pro-Israel party line because if he didn't his sources and confidential briefings would dry up.
Andrew Roberts, now Lord Roberts, is a more substantial figure, but he is an author rather than a professional historian and under no obligation to police his biases, which, since 1991, have been Blairite and neoconservative. His school regard the Second World War and the Cold War as struggles not against particular tyrannies with their sights on global hegemony but against any tyranny anywhere. If Tuvalu was a dictatorship, he would demand world war against Tuvalu.
PRC-China really is (would/should be) one of the world's most offensive governments to liberal sensibilities. Somehow I can't imagine him coolly calling the "president" of that country or its "politburo", despite its perpetually-bullying, one-party state system, "some of the most evil people on the planet."
"Finally, no list of new books worth noting this year would be complete without Steve Sailer’s Noticing."
A most excellent recommendation from an amazing, unique individual who has helped serve as well as teach young students in the field of law.
Also, Ms Wax as well as Mr Hood both directly referenced Steve by name at this year's American Renaissance Conference. Was quite surprised indeed to have found that Ms Wax was not only invited but she came and gave an awesome speech (while also referencing Steve).
Still think that Steve should be extended an invite to the Mr Taylor's American Renaissance Conference (assuming for a moment that he hasn't been extended an invitation in years past, although its very possible that Mr Taylor has invited him to speak at his annual conference).
I understand your comment to mean would prefer is Steve Sailer got higher billing.
Instead they gave top-slot to a Professor David Azerrad praising transcripts of Leo Strauss talks from 75 years ago. Granted, that kind of promotion is part of Claremont's mission.
"You know how you learned your ABC's? Well, when people write books together, they put their names in ABC order, just like when you line up your alphabet blocks! That way, it's super easy to find everyone's name!"
Look, you can say what you want, but Claremont has been quite influential in building together the MAGA (natcon) coalition which both (a) has a realistic pathway to power , and (b) creates an intellectual playing field where books like NOTICING are appreciated.
Judge Napolitano or Unz simply publish too much tiermondist junk. That applies to the post-1945 Schmitt too.
I understand that core-Claremonter Michael Anton is to be named Director of Policy Planning, one of the most important (not-so-public facing) positions there is.
AND --- Michael Anton is known to be a Sailer reader, and pro-Sailer. (Take note of THAT, future historians studying the 2020s; just keep your eyes on the road, or whatever expression you future-people may use, given your flying cars and all.)
I duckduckgoed the term "tiermondist", but all the links were in French.
Perplexity: "The term "tiermondist" refers to a perspective or movement that is associated with the Third World, particularly in the context of political and social ideologies. It derives from the French term "tiers-monde," meaning "Third World," and is often linked to discussions around post-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and socialist movements that seek to address the inequalities faced by countries in the Global South."
I didn't even know that Napolitano published anything (where?), but I anyway don't associate the Unz Review with anything I'd call Third-Worldism, so I'm still puzzled.
It's fantastic that "game still recognises game" as Amy Wax proves in her review of your book.
Looking through the lists, it's great to see another mention for PG Wodehouse, especially since I'm now halfway through my first Jeeves and Woister book, courtesy of this fine SubStack.
I'd recommend Carnage by Nick Cave as my book of the year, a journey through his grief and rehabilitation with the world through the medium of music, family, religion, pottery and his friendship with Sean O'Hagan.
Interesting that two of the writers, including one who is a professor at Boudwin, recommend David Garrow's 2017 book bashing Barack Obama this year. Is this a sign that Obama's standing among the elite has taken a big enough hit that he is likely to never recover from it?
Well deserved praise, Steve. From a national treasure of perceptive common sense.
Leo Strauss is of course the founder of the Straussians, Wolfowitz, the whole Kagan family, Nuland, and so on.
Essentially the source of the neo-con thinking which has lead to such horrendous US policies and in particular Iran, Syria, Gaza West Bank, Libya, Lebanon. Countless people living in mayhem because of neocon policies.
The seed of modern evil (and the reason why US is so isolated and hated throughout the wider world).
"Andrew Roberts
Biographer
Historian
Con Coughlin’s Assad: Triumph of Tyranny (2024) is a remarkable and truly gripping book by a veteran British war correspondent who has visited Syria many times, was nearly captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and has already written biographies of Assad’s fellow-tyrants Ayatollah Khomeini (2010) and Saddam Hussein (2005), with whom Assad clearly has a good deal of traits in common. Coughlin gets right deep inside the warped personality of one of the most evil men on the planet."
What great timing. Just as the media is instructed to re-write the history of Syria again so as to permit the west to annoint an out and out terrorist as President of Syria (still with a $10m bounty on his head).
Decades of cruel Sanctions and funding of "moderate" rebels along with israel and Turkey are suddenly forgotten as we fake another victory for "democracy".
2005 was peak Saddam nonsense too. He was the guy we supported when using Chemical Weapons on Iran. When Iraqi fighters attacked a US ship in the Med, Saddam publicly apologised, but media were told to ignore it as US blamed Iran and used it as an excuse for extra sanctions on Iran to demonstrate their support for Iraq in their war.
Congratulations on the mention. I've always thought that these end-of-year book recommendations should focus on books published during the year (like yours). Otherwise one gets random endorsements of books that the contributors happened to have read lately (e.g. I would recommend Nabokov's The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Houllebecq's The Elementary Particles/Atomised, and Elmore Leonard's Raylan Givens books on the one hand since I just read them, and Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy on the other since I just taught those). And, of course, since the Claremont Review is run by Straussians, one gets the obligatory obeisance at the alter several times over, even though he's been dead for fifty years and no one reads him other than his epigoni (if my recommendations were to run like the Straussians, I'd be recommending Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and Oakeshott's On Human Conduct and Rationalism in Politics each year).
What would Carl Schmitt say about the strange phenomenon of "Trump" in these strange past ten years?
What would Carl Schmitt about Romania this month declaring a giant "exception" and annulling an election in which the wrong guy had won?
Carl Schmitt is a moral agnostic posing as a post-catholic integrist. Some even say he enjoyed providing legal justifications for murderous lust, because he could. You know what he says: "The sovereign is he who can declare the state of exception" and even more profoundly "Der Führer schützt das Recht" - it is the Führer who upholds the law. Based on Schmitt, one would say the Romanian supreme court is the Romanian sovereign. Nu, what more can one say? The only good thing one can mention of Carl Schmitt is that he wrote a recommendation for Leo Strauss when it counted.
Schmitt wrote a good deal about populism, though he didn't use that exact term. For example, in writing about democracy, Schmitt claimed that democracy is the rule of the people, but, before the people can rule, the people must distinguish between themselves and foreigners (the famous friend/enemy distinction that Schmitt claimed was the primary political act). Once that distinction is made, however, it is still not clear exactly how the people's will can be calculated. According to Schmitt, the most common way, majoritarianism, means not rule of/by the people, but rule of/by the majority of the people. Since the minority must be understood to be 'wrong' in some way (i.e. they don't know the authentic will of the people), it brings out the possibility that the majority itself might be wrong. So, according to Schmitt, minoritarian democracy makes perfect sense, and, since this minority might be wrong as well, rule by one person isn't necessarily anti-democratic, since the one person might personify the will of the people better than the people themselves (this was pre-Nazi rule, so his primary example was Mussolini). I'm not at all suggesting that Trump is il Duce, but Schmitt would certainly agree with the notion that the rise of Trump and Trumpism is an exemplary case of democracy (as he understood it) in action.
"rule by one person isn't necessarily anti-democratic, since the one person might personify the will of the people better than the people themselves"
This is a destruction of the meaning of words, and doesn't make me want to read the guy.
I wasn't attempting to defend Schmitt. I was merely paraphrasing his argument, and it was an argument used not only by Mussolini and Hitler, but also by all of the various 'People's Democracies' of the Soviet Era.
On a different note, the classical Greeks, who invented democracy, would find our current usage of the term to be a 'destruction of the meaning of words', as well. Were Aristotle around today, he would classify our (Western liberal democratic) form of government as a mixture of aristocracy and oligarchy. The only truly democratic institution (in the Greek sense of the term) in the US these days is the jury system.
I said specifically that the destruction of the meaning of words that Schmitt engaged in didn't make me want to read HIM, so whether you were defending him or not is neither here nor there.
And the franchise in Athens was more limited than the franchise is in the USA so if Aristotle would say that then Aristotle would be wrong.
Of course translating votes into governmental policy is always problematic but that was true in Athenian "democracy" as well.
The jury system is not terribly democratic. As a juror you are pretty completely under the apparatchik thumb, the Penny and Zimmerman trials notwithstanding..
Is Andrew Roberts (a Churchill biographer) serious, with this line about a book getting "inside the warped personality of [Bashar Assad,] one of the most evil men on the planet"?
When was that written? When printed? Bashing Assad as "the most evil man on the planet" sounds little ridiculous, certainly so at this point in mid-December 2024.
Yeah that was jarring for me as well. The ranks of Bashar's political opposition include a number of people quite willing to burn their infidel countrymen alive. And don't get me started on the "chlorine barrel bombs."
I've been following the lies about Syria and Assad ever since about 2013. Barely a true thing has been said. Not least there is no civil war as almost all the so called rebels are both mercenaries and foreign, including some 10,000 Ujghurs coralled out of China via US intelligence services via Turkey.
Were we being told truths about Assad before 2013? Conceivably, but it seems extremely unlikely.
Here's another lie. CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUzruGhBVpI&t=461s
CNN witnesses moment man is freed from Syrian prison
Turns out CNN themselves have reported he wasn't a long term prisoner. As was quite obvious to anyone watching.
"...almost all the so called rebels are both mercenaries and foreign, including some 10,000 Ujghurs coralled out of China via US intelligence services via Turkey."
droy said 5-10,000 Ujigers earlier, but also said 30,000 was credible, but without a link he's just making things up. He also insists that of the two named (by Wikipedia) leaders of HTS only one is "Syrian", though which one isn't Syrian he doesn't make clear. He's got a dog in this fight somehow (it appear to be Assad) and truth is no object in his propaganda.
"he is making it up"
How about Andrew Phillips says it is wrong - where is your problem with that?
Where are your balls?
What kind of wimp are you that you chase someone around substack just to say "where is the proof" for things you should know full well and are unable to actually deny?
and FFS google Ujghurs in Syria if you give a damn about the topic.
Google it yourself and try to come up with something from a credible source that supports your claims. You never do, so the proper conclusion after all this experience with you and a more and more extensive encounter with the evidence that doesn't support what you say is that you're making it up.
Still waiting for your explanation of why one of the two top HTS leaders (which one?) listed by Wikipedia is not Syrian.
Or, for that matter, why RFKJr is "anti-vax" when he says he's not and that he is fully vaccinated. Oh, yeah, you said he's crazy, but from you that isn't worth shit.
And sorry to crush your self importance, you contemptible little weenie, but I've been participating in Steve Sailer comment threads since long before you showed up to enturd the place.
Is that a statement that there are no ujghurs in Ukraine?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh no, you don't actually say anything again. Such a shame.
You toned down the out and out insults at least. well done.
Meanwhile the whole world is learning just what HTS is made of - it is even making mainstream media. Given it another 10 years and you'll drop the subject.
Are there any good guys in Syria? Maybe the Kurds?
Western idealism and its good guy ("us") vs. bad guy ("Hitler") analysis doesn't really apply.
The Kurds are inbred and unpopular, like the Kosovars. The Sunni are uncouth rabble who breed like rabbits. There are 1 million Alawites and 20,000 Christians and those are probably the only two groups with high enough IQ and Greek/European admixture for anything like non-chaotic, secular, republican rule.
You and I have lived our whole lives in Anglo-European republics with nuclear families, where the right side IQ tail starts at 100. Imagine a country with a median IQ around 80 - 85, fatalistic religion, clannishness, honor culture, and no communitarian sense. You would be one ruthless, authoritarian, MFer, or you'd leave. Or you'd just leave period.
So no good guys at all.
Good and bad isn't the proper frame. The Syrians are what they are and cannot be anything else. A secular, authoritarian Alawite like Assad is as good as it gets for them. Can you imagine the typical suburban goober US or Canadian politician trying to govern the place?
Paul Kagame is the best thing to ever happen to Rwanda, and his personal army killed a lot of people to make it so. The Egyptian junta got tired of the Muslim Brotherhood and its parliamentary majority burning other Egyptians alive, so they overthrew the democratic government and threw its leadership in prison.
The Anglosphere needs to get over this view of itself as the World's School Marm.
"The Kurds are inbred and unpopular [with who?]"
Wikipedia:"Total population
30–40 million[1]
(The World Factbook, 2015 estimate)
36.4–45.6 million[2]
(Kurdish Institute of Paris, 2017 estimate)...
Turkey est. 14.3–20 million[1][2]
Iran est. 8.2–12 million[1][2]
Iraq est. 5.6–8.5 million[1][2]
Syria est. 2–3.6 million[1][2]..."
The numbers seem too large for the population to be inbred.
20,000 Christians, on the other hand... Maybe.
Syrian Kurds are extremely unpopular in Syria and stay in the back end of nowhere.
The Anti-Gnostic 12/18/24: "Syrian Kurds are extremely unpopular in Syria and stay in the back end of nowhere."
The Anti-Gnostic 12/2/24: "Assad is quite popular with a majority of Syrians in a way few American politicians could ever be."
From Syria Moscow is much, much further away than where the Kurds are.
On the evidence your opinions about who is "popular" aren't worth the pixels required to display them.
Con Coughlin is a defence journalist and, like all his trade, takes the pro-Israel party line because if he didn't his sources and confidential briefings would dry up.
Andrew Roberts, now Lord Roberts, is a more substantial figure, but he is an author rather than a professional historian and under no obligation to police his biases, which, since 1991, have been Blairite and neoconservative. His school regard the Second World War and the Cold War as struggles not against particular tyrannies with their sights on global hegemony but against any tyranny anywhere. If Tuvalu was a dictatorship, he would demand world war against Tuvalu.
Does Lord Roberts rant and rave about China?
PRC-China really is (would/should be) one of the world's most offensive governments to liberal sensibilities. Somehow I can't imagine him coolly calling the "president" of that country or its "politburo", despite its perpetually-bullying, one-party state system, "some of the most evil people on the planet."
Most Evil: Fauci is my Vote.
"Finally, no list of new books worth noting this year would be complete without Steve Sailer’s Noticing."
A most excellent recommendation from an amazing, unique individual who has helped serve as well as teach young students in the field of law.
Also, Ms Wax as well as Mr Hood both directly referenced Steve by name at this year's American Renaissance Conference. Was quite surprised indeed to have found that Ms Wax was not only invited but she came and gave an awesome speech (while also referencing Steve).
Still think that Steve should be extended an invite to the Mr Taylor's American Renaissance Conference (assuming for a moment that he hasn't been extended an invitation in years past, although its very possible that Mr Taylor has invited him to speak at his annual conference).
The fourth of four books "highlighted" by the 22nd of 23 "highlighters."
Claremont falls some more notches in MY book.
I understand your comment to mean would prefer is Steve Sailer got higher billing.
Instead they gave top-slot to a Professor David Azerrad praising transcripts of Leo Strauss talks from 75 years ago. Granted, that kind of promotion is part of Claremont's mission.
I outsourced this one to chatgpt.
"You know how you learned your ABC's? Well, when people write books together, they put their names in ABC order, just like when you line up your alphabet blocks! That way, it's super easy to find everyone's name!"
Look, you can say what you want, but Claremont has been quite influential in building together the MAGA (natcon) coalition which both (a) has a realistic pathway to power , and (b) creates an intellectual playing field where books like NOTICING are appreciated.
Judge Napolitano or Unz simply publish too much tiermondist junk. That applies to the post-1945 Schmitt too.
I understand that core-Claremonter Michael Anton is to be named Director of Policy Planning, one of the most important (not-so-public facing) positions there is.
AND --- Michael Anton is known to be a Sailer reader, and pro-Sailer. (Take note of THAT, future historians studying the 2020s; just keep your eyes on the road, or whatever expression you future-people may use, given your flying cars and all.)
I duckduckgoed the term "tiermondist", but all the links were in French.
Perplexity: "The term "tiermondist" refers to a perspective or movement that is associated with the Third World, particularly in the context of political and social ideologies. It derives from the French term "tiers-monde," meaning "Third World," and is often linked to discussions around post-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and socialist movements that seek to address the inequalities faced by countries in the Global South."
I didn't even know that Napolitano published anything (where?), but I anyway don't associate the Unz Review with anything I'd call Third-Worldism, so I'm still puzzled.
The highlighters are listed in alphabetical order...,
My mistake. AI rules.
It's fantastic that "game still recognises game" as Amy Wax proves in her review of your book.
Looking through the lists, it's great to see another mention for PG Wodehouse, especially since I'm now halfway through my first Jeeves and Woister book, courtesy of this fine SubStack.
I'd recommend Carnage by Nick Cave as my book of the year, a journey through his grief and rehabilitation with the world through the medium of music, family, religion, pottery and his friendship with Sean O'Hagan.
Just ordered the Nick Cave book.
You'll love it, if you can catch the current tour, it's such a life-affirming show.
Interesting that two of the writers, including one who is a professor at Boudwin, recommend David Garrow's 2017 book bashing Barack Obama this year. Is this a sign that Obama's standing among the elite has taken a big enough hit that he is likely to never recover from it?
Claremont Institute-associated persons might be elite, but I don't believe they qualify as the definite-article "The Elite" that you are thinking of.
I am a paid subscriber as of just now, so watch out comments section. My interests are noticing and criticizing leftists.