Reviews and Comments

I wasn't exactly expecting to warm to Poilievre over the course of this book, but this really does lay out just how dangerous he is. I think it did a great job of balancing the span of his career to pack as much as possible into a relatively short book -- just enough of his early life to see where his ideology comes from (perhaps unsurprisingly, it's Milton Friedman all the way) but then greater detail as we approach the present. The book is particularly good on his faux populism -- how he pretends to be on the side of working people, when his policies will absolutely screw us all over. Highly recommended, especially as I'm afraid the threat he poses isn't going away anytime soon.

Less cozy than the first book, but still an enjoyable, if short, read

Marred a little by pacing issues, and the fact it ends on a cliffhanger (which necessitates me starting on the second book immediately!), this was a charming read, especially in the way it dealt with Grim's work relationship with Argyle developing into a cozy platonic one.

Not a review as such, because I don't really know how to give this a star rating. It was more academic than I was expecting, though I shouldn't have been surprised given it's a university press! Among the 'highlights' was chapter 2, with a classification and partial enumeration of far-right groups in Canada. Particularly notable was its explanation of the ideology behind Diagolon, which is much more sinister than I remember from news coverage around the time of the convoy. There's some good analysis through chapters 3, 4, and 5 of how people are attracted to far-right groups and the world-view they build up. The authors see group members as rational actors, even if the underlying facts they lean on are a very one-sided view of reality, often veering into conspiratorial thinking. Chapter 6 is particularly good on the failures of PSC and CSIS, who appear stuck in a post-9/11 focus on Islamist terror and almost willfully ignore the danger of the far-right. Also good to see the authors comment on the term 'lone wolf' -- as they point out, this commonly-used expression assigns far too much 'coolness' to these individuals and is practically only ever used for white attackers -- 'lone actor' is a more helpfully-neutral term.

Really good introduction to antisemitism, from its origins in early Christianity through to today. Lots to think about in its coverage of antisemitism on the left (see Bebel's 'socialism of fools'), including the easy tendency to contrast financial capitalism with a more productivist capitalism. Sensitive handling of the controversy around Corbyn's Labour Party. Good coverage of links between antisemitism and anti-Communism, including how William Lind generated the spectre of 'Cultural Marxism' in 2012 to replace the defunct fear of the Soviet Union. Explains well how White Nationalism and the Christian Right use antisemitism, especially as part of conspiracy theories. Probably the most challenging part (both to read and, presumably, to write) concerns Israel/Palestine and Zionism (including the world of Christian Zionism). I think they did a good job of tackling this, and it's certainly left me with lots to think about. The remaining quarter or so of the book concerns how we fight antisemitism, especially in a way that ties it in with other battles.

Preceding quote aside, I really liked this. Good discussion of the climate emergency, but in the context of the other environmental crises, especially extinctions. Also does a good job of tying in the intersection with social justice concerns. Somewhat critical of capitalism, if not as much as I'd like :) Particularly good on the failures of mainstream Western Buddhism to deal with wider issues, commenting that it can be overly concerned with individual transformation, not structural, and quotes Loyal Rue talking of "cosmological dualism" and "individual salvation". Comments that socially-engaged Buddhism of all sorts really struggles to get support, both people and money. Reminded me a little of reading "McMindfulness". While there's lots to like here, I was disappointed to see no footnotes and no bibliography, which feels weird in a book that leans on, and even cites liberally, the work of others. Also not bowled over by some of the quotes. Maybe I'm overly judgemental, but I think we can write a book about Buddhism and just skip over Chogham Trungpa, and seeing a Paul Kingsnorth quote is always particularly jarring.