The Book Review Issue (1.15.2018)

Hanover Review Inc. P.O. Box 343 Hanover NH, 03755

Volu m e 3 7 , Is su e 12

Mond ay, Janu ar y 1 5 , 2 0 1 8

THE BOOK REVIEW ISSUE

THE AUSTRIAN NATIONAL LIBRARY A beautiful place to read

Image courtesy of Travel and Leisure

A Review of The Strange King Charles III Death of Europe Daniel M. Bring

Associate Editor In The Strange Death of Europe, British author and journalist Douglas Murray strives to document the readily apparent and dramatic upheaval occurring in Europe. One has to do little more than turn on the news to witness stories of countless migrants pouring into the continent and claiming asylum in rich welfare states like Germany, France, and Norway. As Murray puts it in the book’s first sentence, “Europe is committing suicide.” The most apparent cyanide pill is unmitigated, ongoing immigration from the foreign and predominantly Islamic societies of the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, but it is not the sole cause of death. According to Murray, the secondary fatal components of the great European suicide are declining

indigenous birth rates and the loss of Europe’s faith, traditions, and values. In his book, Murray seeks to explain just how this poison was mixed and why Europe’s taking it, even though many of its natives know it’s lethally toxic.

In the book’s introduction, Murray’s thesis becomes clear; his book’s seemingly hyperbolic title and opening are anything but. Mixing historical and contemporary political analysis with journalistic reporting and an ironic tone, Murray sets out to convince the reader of Europe’s impending demographic, cultural demise. And so, what he offers us in The Strange Death of Europe is a multi-faceted yet compelling argument in favor of his opening assertion. Murray’s personal account of the immigration predicament is enriched by detailed anecdotal and observational descrip-

tions of the ongoing realities of migration into Europe. In most of the book, the case he builds is so well-reasoned and worded, it seems downright inoffensive to all but the most radical defenders of these suicidal, open borders immigration policies. At times, the book seems to suffer from wordiness, a lack of consistent specific focus, and disorderly approach to chronology; however, these sins are not unforgivable and only distract minutely from the book’s central objectives.

In the book’s first half, he outlines the historical origins of the current catastrophe. He reveals its roots in the years following the end of the Second World War and then explores the effects of the ongoing migrant influx, namely cultural disruption and terrorism. He discusses the first arrivals of Turkish gastarbeiters (“guest

workers”) to Germany in the 1960s and the transformative effect it had on local society.

He elaborates on contemporary European pressures in favor of the migrants, as well as contradictory attitudes.

One of the most surprising yet consistent trends that Murray explores is the opposition of native Europeans to the radical mass immigration policies of their governments, like the 60 percent of Germans, who in a May 2016 poll, said that Islam does not belong in Germany. He also introduces various notions of European continental guilt arising from colonialism, while revealing the double standard applied to European and Asian empires.

The destruction caused by the Mongols and the Ottomans, he states, rivaled that caused by any European power.

> FEATURES PAGE 9

Marcus J. Thompson Executive Editor

To even the casual historian, Charles, Prince of Wales’ eventual coronation as Charles III brings to mind the tumultuous period of constitutional uncertainty in 17th century England. From the 1620s until 1688, England endured the rule of Charles I, a Civil War, a botched attempt at Republicanism, the restoration of the Stuart dynasty in 1660 with the ascension Charles II, and finally the Glorious Revolution, which established parliamentary supremacy. At the heart of this conflict, perhaps best realized in the remarkable trial of Charles I, was the definition of the state. Parliament insisted that Charles’ war against parliament constituted a betrayal of the English people and thus treason, for war against the people was war against

England. Charles chose not to dispute the charges, but the Court’s very right to try him, for he was England. This conflict was a flashpoint of modernity; a paradigmatic clash between the feudal order claiming legitimacy from God and republicanism grounding its rule on the primacy of citizens’ just authority in the state.

Previous Charles’ constitutional battles serve as a backdrop to the fictional modern iteration in “King Charles III,” a 2014 play recently adapted for a short film by the BBC. Shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, newly anointed Charles is confounded by a bill seeking to limit freedom of the press in his first weekly meeting with Prime Minister Tristan Evans, who we can assume to be Labour from a quip about Thatcherism.

> FEATURES PAGE 9

THE VALUE OF A GOOD BOOK

THE CROOKED CAMPAIGN

A POPE AND A PRESIDENT

Editor-in-Chief Jack Mourouzis discusses his own personal history with literature and its importance

The Review looks at Hillary Clinton’s reflection on her failed campaign for president

A look at a book that explores the relationship between Reagan and John Paul II

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 7

> FEATURES PAGE 10

2 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRESHMEN WRITE

WORK

For thirty-five years, The Dartmouth Review has been the College’s only independent newspaper and the only student opinion journal that matters. It is the oldest and most renowned campus commentary publication in the nation and spawned a national movement at the likes of Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and countless others. Our staff members and alumni have won many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, and have been published in the Boston Globe, New York Times, National Review, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Village Voice, New Criterion, and many others.

The Review aims to provide a voice for any student who enjoys challenging brittle and orthodox thinking. We stand for free speech, student rights, and the liberating arts. Whatever your political leanings, we invite you to come steep yourself in campus culture and politics, Dartmouth lore, keen witticisms, and the fun that comes with writing for an audience of thousands. We’re looking for writers, photographers, cartoonists, aspiring business managers, graphic designers, web maestros, and anyone else who wants to learn from Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism.

PONTIFICATE

CONSERVATIVE

SAFE space

“Because every student deserves a safe space”

– Inge-Lise Ameer, Former Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Meetings held Mondays at 6:30 PM at our offices at 32 S. Main Street (next to Lou’s in the lower level office space)

INSIDE THE ISSUE The Strange Death of Europe................................................Page 1

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD COME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE MAKING LUDICROUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT US.

King Charles III......................................................................Page 1 Editorial: The Value of a Good Book.................................Page 3 Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.....................................Page 6 Conscience of a Conservative...............................................Page 7 What Happened......................................................................Page 8 The Future is History...........................................................Page 10 A Pope and a President.......................................................Page 11

SUBSCRIBE The Dartmouth Review is produced bi-weekly by Dartmouth College undergraduates. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a tax-deductible, non-profit organization.

Please consider helping to support Dartmouth’s only independent newspaper, and perhaps the only voice of reason left here on campus. Yearly print subscriptions start at just $40, for which we will mail each issue directly to your door. Electronic subscriptions cost $25 per year, for which you receive a PDF of The Review in your inbox at press time. Contributions above $40 are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Please include your mailing address and make checks payable to:

Or subscribe online at:

The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370 www.dartreview.com

NIGEL FARAGE READS THE REVIEW.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – January 15, 2018

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to takerank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITORIAL

Editor-in-Chief

The Value of a Good Book

Jack F. Mourouzis

Executive Editors Joshua D. Kotran Marcus J. Thompson

Managing Editors Devon M. Kurtz Zachary P. Port B. Webb Harrington

Associate Editors Rachel T. Gambee Daniel M. Bring

Senior Correspondents Michael J. Perkins John S. Stahel

BUSINESS STAFF President

Robert Y. Sayegh

Vice Presidents Jason B. Ceto & Noah J. Sofio

ADVISORY Founders

Greg Fossedal, Gordon Haff, Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones

Legal Counsel

Mean-Spirited, Cruel, and Ugly

Board of Trustees

Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooperstein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland Reynolds, William Rusher, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani-Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Sidney Zion

NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. I have a dream...

The Editors of The Dartmouth Review welcome correspondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material published previously in The Review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length. Please submit letters to the editor by mail or email: editor@dartreview.com Or by mail at:

The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370

Please direct all complaints to: editor@thedartmouth.com

The legendary English philosopher John think Locke would have been fascinatLocke wrote that “Education begins the ed by the question. Of course, it was not gentleman, but reading, good company, simply the themes and plot that captivated and reflection must finish him.” As I en- me; McCarthy’s masterful prose is indeed ter the final six months of my Dartmouth more beautiful than the finest painting in experience, it is almost impossible not to any of the world’s greatest museums. The take time to reflect on the educational and Road, to this day, is still my favorite novel. formative journey that began in the fall of My freshman spring, I also read McCar2014. While the goal of these four years is, thy’s Blood Meridian, which again proved at the end of the day, education, I whole- to be one of the most masterful pieces of heartedly concur with Locke that without writing ever composed. good company, reflection, and reading, I It was not until my sophomore winter – and the rest of my classmates – would that I rededicated myself to reading. That not be as inquisitive and intellectual as we term, I took two classes on literature: one are today. on the German novella, and another on In high school, my horizons as a the masterpieces of the Russian trareader were not at all broad; dition. Both were small in scope, most of my time had been but wide in their breadth; I spent reading Harry Potter; read countless books that when I was not occupied term, but two came to the with those, I tended to foforefront. E. T. A. Hoffman’s cus on other fantasy works, The Golden Pot, a romantic such as J. R. R. Tolkien’s Legfantasy novella with an intriendarium, or followed the cate, mystical plot returned cryptic adventures of Robert me to my roots as a fantasy Langdon in Dan Brown’s geek, and Ivan Turgenev’s bestselling novels. The Fathers and Children, a many works of William scopic tale of generaShakespeare and classitional paradigm shifts cal Greek epics proved to in a growing Russia. be of little interest to me; Since those first literature Jack F. Mourouzis they were difficult to read, classes, I continued to exand their plots simply were not as interesting as the other works I read. It was not until my junior year of high school that I experienced a real interest in one of our assigned works; William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was captivating, posing numerous questions about the basic nature of mankind while simultaneously connecting with my more primal and innate sense of adventure. I underwent a similar experience my senior year with Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw; this time, I became fascinated by how a single sentence could be so controversial, and how the roots of modern horror indeed stretch back to Victorian times.

Upon matriculation, I did not intend to devote significant time to the study of literature; instead, it was more of a series of opportunities that simply fell into my lap.

My freshman fall, I failed to read a single book; it was not until my first winter break, just after Thanksgiving, that I cracked open a novel that I had already read once before; Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. On my second read-through, it struck a much different chord; before, I had never really taken the time to examine the larger questions regarding humanity and its place in the world. Do we have any real importance?

What would happen when the fire of man’s morality and civility finally burned out? I

plore this interest in literature through a major in German Studies and a minor in Russian, with focus on the literary tradition. Since my sophomore winter, I have explored nineteenth century German pulp fiction, twentieth century Soviet literature, and the collected works of the legendary Leo Tolstoy. Before I knew it, one of my major focuses in my university studies had become literature; I had never expected this, and I am grateful that the cards fell in this way.

The Review has debated the merits of the studying humanities as opposed to the quantitative sciences many times in the past. Generally, however, we have held consensus that one absolutely ought to have significant exposure to the Western canon. With respect to Locke, I absolutely believe that my experience in college has been enhanced beyond what words can describe by my focus on and appreciation for great literature. It is for this reason that The Review continues to publish its annual book review issue: a mind is always sharpened by a good book, fiction or nonfiction.

I hope that all readers of our publication take the time to acknowledge our thoughts on the books we read during this year’s Winterim, and hope that it may serve as a helpful guide to future considerations of what to read.

4 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK IN REVIEW ALUMNI RESPOND TO COLLEGE PARK CONSTRUCTION PLANS Dartmouth College, with a campus known for its magnificent and historic natural features, has often been referred to as one of the best rural campuses in the United States. The hollowed grounds of College Park are arguably one of the most unique features the campus has to offer, including several monuments and historic spots such as the Lone Pine, Bartlett Tower, and the statue honoring one of Dartmouth’s most beloved alumni, Robert Frost. Many students at the college utilize College Park as a natural oasis, taking in the natural peacefulness that the land has to offer amidst the head-spinning hustle and bustle that Dartmouth students encounter on a daily basis. With the perfect view overlooking the campus, along with the magnificent sunsets and starry nights that can be observed on a clear evening, one would be hardpressed to not to notice how calming a walk in the park can be.

Beyond College Park’s natural beauty, it is also home to the Shattuck Observatory, which is actually the oldest scientific building on campus. The observatory, which has been a vital part of the science department at Dartmouth for over a century, should be celebrated and protected. However, plans to expand the student body along with a seemingly never-ending housing crisis have put both College Park and the Shattuck Observatory in the crossfire of the Hanlon Administration’s fight to increase the size of the college.

Plans to build a large dorm in College Park have been met by strong resistance from the Dartmouth community. A petition against the proposed construction in College Park has circulated with over 1,800 signatures from members of the Dartmouth community.

Many signatories included passionate statements in defense of both College Park and the observatory.

Though there have been very few alternative options to solving the housing crisis that have made headway with the administration, it is hard to ignore some of the petition’s arguments.

The petition points out that College Park is the only “dark sky” spot near central campus which is suitable for observational astronomy. “A new residence hall of the size being considered would inevitably result in a significant increase in outdoor lighting,” the petition explains. “The Shattuck telescope and two smaller telescopes in neighboring observatory buildings in

College Park have served introductory undergraduate astronomy courses taken by many students over the years, as well as popular weekly public observing sessions that are run by students.” The destruction of this fantastic observation area with light pollution would be shameful at best.

The astronomical downsides to construction in College Park are clearly of great concern to a large part of the Dartmouth community. Hopefully the administration and board of trustees considers the effect that this decision will have on the Dartmouth astronomy department, as well as the community as a whole.

More than 340 members of the Notre Dame community, including students and employees, have signed a letter

NOTRE DAME STUDENTS REACT TO MURALS OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS sent to the university’s president, Rev. John Jenkins, requesting that murals depicting Christopher Columbus be removed from the admissions building. The twelve murals have been on display since 1884 and contain images of Columbus’s journey and European discovery of the Americas. The murals also depict Native Americans and African Americans. The letter argues that, “[To] any student, staff, faculty or guest who identifies with a historically oppressed group, the presence of the murals in 21st century America mocks every attempt to make campus more inclusive, more diverse and more culturally sensitive.” Those who have signed the letter are disgusted that Notre Dame condones the murals despite previous efforts to have the exhibit removed. One student of Cherokee descent, Armani Porter, explains his stance: “When I look at these photos I can see quite clearly where I would have fit into the picture.” The letter demands that the murals are not only offensive to those of Native American descent, but to all oppressed peoples. The letter goes on to relate the murals to confederate symbols: “In this era of political divisiveness and a renewed rise of dangerous nationalism, it is time for Notre Dame to remove its own version of a Confederate monument.”

Because of previous protests, pamphlets explaining the purpose of the murals have been placed alongside them.

The pamphlets note that the depiction of Native Americans is “troubling,” and also explain the significance of the murals to the Notre Dame community, “Yet, these murals also exist as cultural artifacts that speak to the past hopes of European Catholic immigrants who wanted to carve out a niche in an often hostile society.” The letter to the president responds to this claim by identifying the images

as “Catholic militarism, and an overly romantic notion of American expansion.”

University spokesman, Dennis Brown, has reported that the university does not intend to take down the murals but will look into “permanent or prominent signage” that would explain the context of the murals more clearly. In a time of strict political correctness, it seems as though the university will not budge on the issue of Christopher Columbus, but does concede a more balanced approach to a sensitive topic.

An overhaul of America’s tax system has been on the forefront of American political discussion since well

TAX OVERHAUL CAUSE FOR CONCERN AT PRIVATE COLLEGES before the last presidential election. It is unsurprising that Congress’ recent tax bill has illicited a flood of speculation regarding shifting incentives and their effects. For private colleges, including Dartmouth, several provisions in particular have caused worry to administrators.

Colleges with per student endowments above $500,000 will receive a new 1.4% tax on investment income. Approximately 35 colleges fall into this bucket, Dartmouth College included. The vast majority of schools affected are similar, selective institutions with high tuition costs.

Many private and public universities receive a large amount funding from donated alumni estateshe senate’s bill raises estate tax exemptions from $5,000,000 to in theory over $22,000,000. The increased exemption may threaten the large, tax exempt donations many colleges rely on.

Despite the numerous austerity measures that will reduce universities’ disposable income, tax deductions on student loan interest remain unchanged.

The continuous outcry of colleges claiming that these measures will reduce their ability to provide financial aid to lower and middle-income students illustrates a fundamentally warped view on spending.

With every school in the Ivy League having an average net cost of attendance around of above $50,000 a year, it is difficult to imagine that there is no fat to be trimmed in order to maintain affordability. Our nation’s colleges have been pressured into a cycle of competitive spending that supersedes any notion of frugality, while threatening the accessibility of education to large swaths of the population.

ADVERTISEMENT

Stinson’s: Your Pong HQ Cups, Balls, Paddles, Accessories

(603) 643-6086 | www.stinsonsvillagestore.com stinsonsvillage@gmail.com

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – January 15, 2018

Brandon E. Teixeira We neither need a system that makes it easier for students to borrow and pay for college, nor need laws that maximize the funds available to institutions of higher learning. We need a system of incentives that encourage colleges to spend with education and accessibility at the forefront.

Dartmouth Government Professor Brendan Nyhan recently collaborated on a study regarding viewer-

Vamsi K. Gadde Rachel T. Gambee

5

William J. Brandon Jacob G. Philhower

CARTOON

DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR PARTICIPATES IN STUDY ON “FAKE NEWS” ship of “Fake News.” Fake news is a buzzword popularized by President Donald Trump and was a source of controversy pertaining to influence on the 2016 presidential election. Nyhan and his associates studied just over 2,500 people, tracking their intake of current events. The study found that 1 in 4 people view fake news. Out of this figure, most tended to be on the political right and had supported Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle. In fact, they found that the 10% of Americans who viewed the most conservative media platforms read about 60% of total fake news. Nyhan’s study also found that even though these people viewed fake news, they were also avid viewers of more reliable news sources, contrary to the common belief that fake news has been knocking real news out of the picture. Nyhan’s study also found that Facebook was by far the most common platform for fake news, a startling observation considering the expansive reach of social media.

The study further concluded that people who are on the political left or right tended to view fake news stories that agreed with their viewpoint, which, one would think, makes them more likely to believe it.

While more research is needed on the impact of fake news, Professor Nyhan’s study does confirm its prevalence. Thanks to Nyhan’s work, we know fake news is here. Now, social media platforms including Facebook must stop it without letting biases censor legitimate opinion pieces.

Dr. James Wright, who previously served as the President of the College, will receive an honorary

PRESIDENT EMERITUS JAMES WRIGHT TO RECEIVE HONORARY DEGREE FROM NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE degree and serve as keynote speaker at the New England College Founders Day celebration. Having led Dartmouth from 1998 to 2009 and previously serving as Dean of Faculty and Provost, his dedication to the College is admirable. Additionally, President Wright is a veteran of the US Marine Corps and in 2005 embarked on a series of visits to our military’s medical facilities in Washington, D.C., speaking to injured members of the armed forces encouraging them to pursue higher education. On top of this, he took charge of raising funds in an effort to promote counseling for the education of wounded US veterans. So for his strong connection to the military, President Perkins of New England College deemed it “fitting that we honor Dr. Wright at our Founders Day celebration and recognize his longstanding commitment to assisting injured soldiers and veterans.”

The Founders Day celebration is a public event held in Bridges Gymnasium at New England College starting at 12:00 noon.

“Back in my day, the snow was up to the third story and we still went to class!”

CARTOON

“We were going to go for a walk in College Park, but there’s this big ugly building there instead.”

CARTOON

“Sick Juul, bro!”

6 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Devon M. Kurtz

News Editor

Antifa? You mean those “black-clad” thugs that smashed up a Starbucks on Berkeley’s campus? Who are they? Where did they come from? Why are they so violent?

Ask no more! All of these questions are answered in Mark Bray’s new book Antifa—The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

Despite what the subtitle might suggest, Antifa is hardly a handbook, or at least not just a handbook. Antifa is a thrown-together patchwork of pseudo-academic research (relying on random people with whom the author was connected), political treatise, apologia of thuggish violence, and, above all, self-aggrandizing historical conjecture. In essence, the book is in part a historical account—albeit of questionable authenticity— and manifesto. There are six sections in addition to the introduction and conclusion: the first three tracing the history of the anti-fascist movement, and the last three focusing on explaining and defending the controversial philosophy and tactics of anti-fascists.

American conservatives tend to portray antifa as a thuggish group of professional criminals that ought to be feared, lest one lets his guard down and they come riot in your neighborhood next. But, Mr. Kurtz is a sophomore at the College and news editor of The Dartmouth Review.

Bray’s answer to the question of who makes up the antifa movement is more laughable than frightening. According to Bray, those who identify with antifa are much more than your typical college-aged “snowflake” social justice warrior, rather they come from the fringes of civil society—punks, skinheads, bikers, and “football hooligans.” These social deviants join together to form an alliance that would probably be unexpected by those outside of their subcultures, but Bray argues that it is not especially atypical. Yet, what begins as an attempt to depict antifa as heroic—he praises them for protecting society by mercilessly attacking fascists, racists, and homophobes without discrimination—ends up portraying them as a pitiful group of freaks who are so insecure about their aberrant lifestyles that they seek a sort of social validation by adopting a virile persona that manifests itself primarily in violent outbursts. Ironically, their violence ultimately damages the very communities that they were supposedly protecting. In short, they are misguided losers who know little more than how to smash storefronts and call people racist.

Yet, the sections of the book focused on the history of anti-fascism are undoubtedly fascinating, and if purchasing the book did not give direct financial support to antifa radicals, I would almost suggest buying it solely for these first few sec-

tions. The main criticism of Bray’s historical research is actually in the book itself, as Bray himself admits that it is narrow, Western-centric, and decidedly white in its scope. I would also, however, question the accuracy of his historical analysis, as he often makes broad conclusions that are only superficially supported by the evidence he cites.

His analysis is, obviously, politically charged—he declares the book “an unabashedly partisan call to arms”—and thus he often takes vague accounts as facts with little nuance. But, “partisan” might actually understate Bray’s prejudice. He is quick to call any death of an anti-fascist “murder”—even if there is ambiguity surrounding the case. He often disregards such uncertainty and asserts his own truth, even if that “truth” is at best “alternative” and at worst fictitious. In addition, Bray often aggrandizes the role of antifa in historical events.

Bray is clever—he attributes the achievements of groups from a variety of backgrounds to the antifascist movement. Yet, he seems to contradict himself in this way, because he both provides specific tenets that antifascists must follow or advance and also considers groups who do not qualify as genuine “antifa” by his own definition as antifascists. He does not parse or even discuss this dilemma. Despite these critical shortcomings, Bray’s work ought not be wholly forsaken—he has created an impressively comprehensive history of antifa that will captivate anyone interested in 19th and 20th Century European politics.

The topic of bias brings us to the most problematic ele-

antifa is a “legitimate political tradition” devoted to far more than merely combating fascism, as it is “a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace.” This overreaching definition of antifa, coupled with Bray’s declaration that fascism doesn’t actually have a consistent, cohesive, or definable ideology, means that anyone whom antifa opposes or who opposes antifa can be labeled a fascist, regardless of whether or not their views are actually fascistic. The deadly implications of Bray’s argument are boundless. The latter case is at least as disturbing—Bray tends to use a bastardized definition of “self-defense” to argue for justifiable homicide, as he asserts that anti-fascists need not adhere to “conventional interpretations of self-defense grounded in individualistic personal ethics” and should rather use “offensive tactics in order to forestall the potential need for literal self-defense down the line.” In other words, the crimes committed by antifa are not justified by any legitimate philosophical reasoning at all, but rather Bray relies on the same juvenile “logic” used by middle schoolers who start fighting on the playground.

He doesn’t even have the intellectual propriety—or perhaps capability—to defend this semantically paradoxical idea of preemptive self-defense, as he doesn’t provide any argument whatsoever that goes beyond merely stating that antifa is al-

ments of Antifa. It is no surprise that a political treatise is in fact politically biased— anyone could guess that. But, one would hope for at least some indication that the author understands that political thought is complex and variable. Concerning Antifa, those hopes are futile. Bray is almost childish in his eagerness to call all opponents to any of the myriad of tenets of antifa “fascists” and any beating or killing committed by antifa “justified.” In the former case, you might think, “well of course the opponents of anti-fascists are fascists, that seems obvious,” but the reality is more complicated. Bray argues that

lowed to transcend the traditional limitations of what can be labeled “self-defense.” Given how much of Bray’s book is devoted to defending antifa’s tactics—and that this point in his book would seem to be the argumentative climax—one would expect him to engage in an impressive and thoughtful philosophical debate on this particular issue—his neglect to do so is embarrassingly sloppy.

Perhaps most unsettling is when Bray describes—glorifies—antifa’s methods in their never-ending fight to wage war on fascism, or anything they determine to be fascistic. He tells tales of marauding bands

Bray’s Antifa could be dismissed as poorly executed or condemned as disturbingly radical, but perhaps the best descriptor is simply “desperate.”

of antifa, “defense patrols armed, at times, with machetes, petrol bombs, and Molotov cocktails,” as if the thugs ought to be categorized with the heroes and heroines of Classical Greek epics. In his more radical moments, he declares that antifascists must be revolutionary, that violence is a “vital”— albeit “small”—part of antifascist activity, and that whiteness must be abolished. Perhaps his most thoughtful—and even convincing—argument is that against “free speech.” He is quite compelling here, as he points out that antifa is against the political speech of fascists, in favor of the speech of prisoners, and willing to fight to amplify the voices of those historically ignored in the political realm. He criticizes liberal commentators in particular for lambasting antifa for being “anti-free speech,’ while they themselves oppose speech in certain circumstances, such as cigarette companies targeting their advertising towards children. Bray believes that fascism is certainly a more formidable and worthy threat to society than tobacco. If Bray argued as effectively throughout his book as he does in this section, then this book would be deserving of the highest praises, regardless of its content. Alas, he does not. Instead, his prose practically hyperventilates with angst and desperate attempts to overcome the insecurities of the antifascist movement. He tries hopelessly to make antifa seem indispensable to the survival of humanity, but he falls short. He never provides concrete evidence as to why antifa’s methods are the only ones that work, relying instead on weak arguments, twisted historical analysis, and exaggerations.

Bray’s Antifa could be dismissed as poorly executed or condemned as disturbingly radical, but perhaps the best descriptor is simply “desperate.” Bray often seems to be trying to elicit some greater historical meaning from the otherwise mundane and unimpressive actions of antifa. Furthermore, he places himself so closely to antifa that his praises of the movement border on self-aggrandizement. For these reasons, it is odd that so many academics and critics have given Antifa such acclaim. It seems as if many leftist critics wanted Antifa to be something more than what it was, and thus gave it praise for what it could have been. Bray will find no such sympathy here—in two words: do better.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – January 15, 2018

7

FEATURES

Conscience of a Conservative

Alec R. Kaplan

Contributor

“Far too often, we come to destroy, not to build. As the country burns. And our institutions are undermined. And our values are compromised.

And the people become increasingly despondent and enraged. And we become so estranged from our principles that we no longer recognize what principle is.”

The man who wrote that, Republican Senator Jeff Flake, was virtually unknown outside of his home state of Arizona before the 2016 Presidential election. During the rise of Donald Trump, however, Flake quickly became known as a leading figure of the anti-Trump Republican movement. Even after Trump’s victory in the 2016 Election against Hillary Clinton and subsequent inauguration, Flake continued his criticism of the new President.

On August 1 st, 2017, Senator Flake published Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle. With reverence to fellow Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater who authored The Conscience of a Conservative in 1960, Flake laments the direction of the current Republican Party. He describes how the GOP has developed values that are antithetical to the traditional conservatism of figures like Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. In Flake’s eyes, the GOP Mr. Kaplan is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

“has become compromised by other powerful forces – nationalism, populism, xenophobia, extreme partisanship, even celebrity.”

What is conservatism? According to Flake, the answer lies in the Old Guard of the Republican Party. At its most basic level, conservatism is the principle that “government should be limited and prudent in its exercise of the power granted it by the people.” Citing figures such as National Review founder William F. Buckley, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, and of course, Barry Goldwater, Flake explains the importance of values such as economic liberty, individual responsibility, restraint, and limited government. He believes that conservatives should support checks and balances, tax and spending cuts, and free trade. Throughout the book, Flake demonstrates how these values have come under attack by the current Republican Party.

The primary antagonist of the book is President Donald Trump who, in his campaign and first few months as president, has launched a wave of anger and fear throughout the United States and turned the Republican party upside down. Flake regards some of Trump’s actions as anti-conservative and contrasts them to the policies and actions of established and revered conservatives.

Flake begins his attack on Trump in the book’s second chapter with a touching story about his father-in-law, Owen Bae. After suffering a severe rupture in the aorta,

Bae’s chances of survival were slim. However, with the assistance of two Muslim doctors, one from Palestine and one from Afghanistan, his life was saved. Both doctors came to the United States after fleeing their home countries to escape terrorism and violence. Flake follows this story by stressing the importance of legal immigration and denouncing Trump’s executive orders that suspended the arrival of Syrian refugees and issued a travel ban on multiple Muslim-majority nations. He goes on to call Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric “morally repugnant and un-American.” These two adjectives can be used to summarize Flake’s general opinion of Trump and his policies.

Throughout the book, Flake alternates between personal anecdotes and tales of old conservative icons to further emphasize his beliefs. He constantly reminds the reader that he grew up on a cattle ranch in Goldwater’s Arizona. His modest Mormon upbringing is most likely emphasized to provide a contrast with Trump’s privileged early life. He talks about the loyal and hard-working migrants who worked on his ranch to counter Trump’s rhetoric about Mexican illegal immigrants. One chapter is dedicated to Goldwater and Buckley and has a segment called “what would Goldwater do?” Here, Flake lays out many of Trump’s actions to demonstrate how anti-conservative they are, including his praise of oppressive regimes, slander of ethnic and religious minorities, and promotion of conspiracy theories. Flake also discusses free trade policies, the

and crony capitalism. Other forces which contributed to the rise of Trump include right-wing news outlets, such as Fox News and InfoWars, that report on conspiracies rather than facts as well as Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook for helping spread radical sentiment throughout social media.

President Trump responded to Senator Flake’s book with a

The primary antagonist of the book is President Donald Trump who, in his campaign and first few months as president, has launched a wave of anger and fear throughout the United States and turned the Republican party upside down. barrage of attacks and tweets as well as an endorsement of Kelli Ward, a Republican Arizona State Senator who is running for Flake’s Senate seat.

This response from the President, along with rock-bottom approval ratings, prompted Flake to announce that he will not seek reelection. This development was a victory for Trump and his allies as well as a grim reminder of the decline of the moderate wing of the Republican Party.

Although Flake is quite critical of President Trump, his Senate voting record is not.

Since Trump took office, Flake has voted in line with the rest of the Republican Party. He supported many controversial cabinet nominations, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and EPA Chief Scott Pruitt. Additionally, Flake voted in support of measures

Still, despite his lack of personal resistance to Trump’s legislative agenda, Flake and his new book serve as important reminders to all Americans, not just conservatives, of the direction that President Trump is moving the Republican Party toward. condemnation of news media, and partisanship in his comprehensive denouncement of President Trump.

However, Flake does not only blame Donald Trump for the decline of the Republican Party. For him, it all began with Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995 after the Republicans became the majority party for the first time in 40 years.

Flake describes Gingrich as someone “whose talent for politics exceeded his interest in governing.” Gingrich and his protégé, former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, allegedly oversaw a period of petty partisanship

passed a tax code that favors significant cuts (something Flake has advocated for his entire career) and nominated Neil Gorsuch, a Scalia protégé and unapologetic conservative, to the Supreme Court.

Still, despite his lack of personal resistance to Trump’s legislative agenda, Flake and his new book serve as important reminders to all Americans, not just conservatives,

to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (his fellow Republican Arizona Senator John McCain cast the decisive vote to shoot down one of the repeal bills) and both versions of the tax code overhaul. Flake may publicly disapprove of Trump, but he has not demonstrated any willingness to act in the Senate. There are two explanations. Flake may just be timid and indecisive. Or, more likely, Flake agrees with Trump’s actions and tacitly admits that Trump has supported some conservative policies.

Although he has uprooted many traditional conservative principles in favor of harmful populism, Trump has also

of the direction that President Trump is moving the Republican Party toward. He provides a comprehensive outline of the important conservative values to which he believes Republicans must strive to return.

However, he fails to explain just how those values can be reobtained. Currently, Flake and other Trump-resistant Republicans are not faring well. He and Tennessee Senator Bob Corker are stepping down at the end of their terms following public spats with President Trump, exacerbated a revolt among their voter base. Few other Republicans have been willing to publicly criticize Trump, and even fewer have actively tried to block parts of his agenda. The populist wave remains strong on the Right, and Trump remains unchallenged in his leadership of the GOP. Conscience of a Conservative is music to the ears of moderate Republicans and intellectual, libertarian-oriented conservatives. Senator Jeff Flake is right; the principles and values that have guided the Republican party for decades are compromised. The legacy of Barry Goldwater is in danger.

But, it is not yet clear whether these insights matter. The 2016 elections proved to the country that traditional conservativism has lost its appeal to the Republican Party base, at least temporarily. 2018 and 2020 will be a test for Flake, Trump and the entire GOP. The Democratic Party has already responded forcefully to its humiliation in 2016 with significant victories in Virginia and deep-red Alabama.

GOP primaries all across the country will be hotly contested between Goldwater conservatives and anti-establishment Trump disciples. Flake may have been pushed out for now, but the battle for the heart of the Republican Party has only just begun.

8 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

A Review of King Charles III

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

This initial conflict escalates into Charles refusing Royal Assent and eventually deigning to dissolve parliament altogether. As an amateur historian with an admittedly childish monarchical fantasy, I found this premise exciting. Yet I came away from “King Charles III” disappointed. Perhaps my critique is blinded by my own expectations (I imagine myself a Jacobite had I been born in the late 17th century), but even as I try to cast my own projections aside, I find that the plot and characters do a disservice to the constitutional conflict “King Charles III” seeks to portray.

Disappointingly, Charles’ key moments are not organic to himself, but a result of Leader of the Opposition Steven’s manipulations. First, she uses her access to plant the idea of refusing Royal Assent, which Charles at first brushes aside before later coming around to defend such a maneuver. Second, when Parliament is pushing through a bill to circumvent Royal Assent, she advises Charles to seek “inspiration in William IV,” alluding to William IV’s 1831 dissolution of the House of Commons in response to the defeat of electoral reform. Charles response indicates that he does not even know this anecdote in history, undoubtedly surprising for the King to be ignoMr. Thompson is a junior at the College and an executive editor at The Dartmouth Review.

rant of the history of his office.

Similarly, Prince William’s ultimate defiance of his father seems to be due to Kate Middleton’s manipulations, as he originally defends his tacit approval of his father’s actions as key to his “station” and filial duty as prince. In one particular soliloquy Kate confirms her own ambitions to be queen along with William and to wield power of her own. This is particularly unnerving as she later invokes her popularity in order to influence William to betray his father.

Not only is this a starkly negative portrayal of a Duchess who by no indication harbors such ill-advised ambitions, but it is disappointing as it is indicative of William’s apparent spinelessness. Just as Charles falls under the opposition leader’s manipulations that lead him to wield ancient royal power, William similarly seems incapable of independent thought.

Not only are Charles and William’s plotlines colored by their private weakness, but Prince Harry seems laughably timid, especially when contrasted with the hard-charging Prince who insisted on serving in a combat role in the War on Afghanistan and is notorious for his aggressive antics. Upon meeting a young woman “Jess” at a party, who introduces herself by rudely inquiring about whether Harry’s real father was James Hewitt, Harry disappointingly does not react or even attempt to defend his mother’s honor. Subsequently, when the two become

closer, she criticizes taxpayer support for the monarchy, to which Harry hastily agrees without offering the simple defense that revenue from royal property given to the state is greater than taxpayer support for the royal family. “King Charles III’s” Harry is far from the one we know from the media. He is not the charismatic sportsman or combat veteran, but somewhat of a neutered boy incapable of performing his duty. I suspect that we are meant to sympathize with Harry’s portrayed “entrapment,” but I cannot escape disappointment in Harry’s lack of respect for duty and station, which his father reveres and older brother comes to respect in his own way.

Despite my qualms about Charles’ character, a few scenes stand out as exceptional for their portrayal of monarchical and republican authority. In his first meeting with King Charles, PM Tristan Evans attempts to defend his bill curtailing freedom of the press by invoking Princess Diana. Charles is justifiably offended, but nonetheless retorts by distinguishing between his beliefs as a man and convictions as King. Here, the film correctly portrays a struggle seen many times in history. I myself recall a particularly memorable lecture by history Professor P. David Lagomarsino in which he told of King Louis XIV of France casting aside his love of Marie Mancini, daughter of a relatively minor Italian aristocrat, in order to marry Spanish Infanta Maria Theresa much to the benefit of France.

A second scene in which similar themes are on display is Charles’ address to the people after news had broken that he refused Royal Assent. Charles defines his role as one who “stands outside the rough and tumble of expedience;” a King acting out of conscience and service to the English people. Here, when Charles directly addresses the people, he strives to invoke the “wise and ancient bond between the crown and people” he referenced in an earlier soliloquy. He defines himself as a patient check on parliamentary authority, safely above electoral politics, and a servant of his nation’s interests.

Finally, at the climactic moment in the conflict between monarchy and parliament, Charles storms the commons and with excellent tenor and delivery dissolves the House and demands fresh elections. In his speech, magnified by a foreboding soundtrack, he invokes his ancient right as monarch, his unique cultivation as a ruler, and his authority rooted in his manifestation of England. The personification of the state in one man strikes at the heart of absolutist thought; that there be one man (or woman) raised to rule and given authority through ideally years of hereditary right. This scene also echoes the conflicts of old that climaxed in the English Civil War. Stylistically, playwright Mike Bartlett composed the play in iambic pentameter, the same meter of William Shakespeare, to varying degrees of success. At times the poetry feels forced, perhaps be-

cause it was not originally intended for film. Nonetheless, awkward dialogue is an unfortunate symptom of blank verse, including one moment when Charles referred to himself as the King of “England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland” as opposed to referencing the four kingdoms in their proper order.

After watching “King Charles III” I felt as if I had been “trolled” (baited into a state of frustration, in case our older readers are unfamiliar with internet lingo). I hoped for a showdown worthy of the legacy of English constitutionalism, but I came away disappointed with Charles’ reliance on MP Stevens for his action against parliament as well as the confused state of William and Harry, who act under female influence and change their minds frequently.

What started as an intriguing premise promising a paradigmatic clash between traditional duty and modern authority was lost to weak characters. Nonetheless, there are a few choice moments in “King Charles III” that convey thematic elements worthy of the history of constitutional crises that make the BBC adaptation palatable. These scenes, coupled with a stellar soundtrack, mitigated my frustration over weak characters and plot that did a disservice to the historical clash it sought to portray. Overall, I would tentatively recommend “King Charles III,” if only for the scenes conveyed above, but caution any historian hoping for an epic portrayal of King fighting commons.

marks. I rest easy knowing that it was not at all a reflection of the poor quality of my message. Instead, it was the fault of my deplorable and uneducated professor who clearly didn’t understand the brilliance of my message and how much I wanted to help him.

How could my vision for this essay not align with everyone else’s, when mine is obviously right?

In this same spirit, I commend Hillary Clinton for her brave reflection and diversion of blame to others as Hillary took center stage to lament the massive tragedy that was her presidential campaign.

The scene is set, the world has just ended, Donald J. Trump has just been elected president. Rather than accepting her loss and disappearing into the woodworks, Clinton returns to the political arena for what is hopefully her last time. After a hard-fought election filled with controversy, Clinton now takes the time to give her own autopsy of her failed presidential campaign. In her description of the election the same delusion that fueled her campaign reigns. Her blind confidence in liberal identity politics and the minority versus majority mentality which permeates the left embraces the other, while assigning blame to the average American. As opposed to working to create the best possible American society for everyone, regardless of background, Clinton

pressed blame for any societal issues on the “deplorables” of America.

Throughout “What Happened,” Hillary Clinton attempts to convey her relatable and everyday life as a presidential candidate. From the first page until the last, Clinton makes constant youthful comparisons and sounds like your grandma the day after she discovered Urban Dictionary.

Most of her more meaningful analysis is diluted with frivolous pandering in lines like, “I put on yoga pants and a fleece almost immediately.” (How relatable, I also love wearing fleeces!

Although, I generally forgo the yoga pants.)

From the onset of Clinton’s book, a desolate Clinton bemoans her enormous loss at the hands of a mad-man.

The book does not aim for meaningful analysis of the election and Clinton’s failed strategy. The book instead conveys Clinton’s emotional journey throughout the election and answers the important questions the American public has been dying to know. I won’t spoil it for all the eager readers out there, but get ready to find out how many windows Hillary has in her bedroom and even the color suit she was going to wear as president elect. While she attempts to justify her mistakes and shortfalls on the campaign trail, she reflects on the hypothetical and petty retorts she wishes she had said in the moment (you

go girl). For instance, the response she almost sent in response to Jason Chaffetz’s Instagram post from inauguration day, “To be honest, thought you were Reince.”

Clinton continues to caste away responsibility from her own shortcomings and misguided message.

The blatant delusion she has carried throughout the entire election process shows no sign of ending. She fails to recognize that both her and Trump were despised candidates and that blaming her loss on her gender degrades our own political system.

The fact that she lost to objectively one of the most controversial and disliked presidential candidates (besides herself) shows how poorly America thought of her. There are so many wonderful reasons to despise Hillary Clinton that is seems juvenile to blame it on her gender.

More telling is her criticism of the electoral college. Yes, Hillary did win the popular vote, and yes, this is still irrelevant. Contrary to Hillary’s campaign strategy, the president is not chosen by popular vote, this is no secret. The fact that Clinton’s campaign strategy focused more on winning over the majority of the United States population and not winning the election further demonstrates how misguided her entire campaign was.

In the process of describing her experience running for president, she

never hesitates to remind the reader that she alone holds the answer to all of America’s problems. From Alzheimer’s disease, climate change, and even playground bullying, Hillary had a government initiative to help us all. As we know, government initiatives have worked so well in the past, (Just say no kids, am I right?).

For 512 pages, Clinton takes her reader through the emotions she experienced losing the election and attempts to justify the actions she took (which at least in part) led to her failure. Overall, the impression that What Happened is Hillary Clinton’s swan song from politics is apparent.

What Happened is Hillary’s final I told you so. The book comes across as a stream of attempts to relate to its readers, to humanize an inhuman election process. However, it just comes across as insincere pandering. The totally “relatable” experiences that Hillary presents exemplify the same issue she faced during the election and her disconnect with the American people. Having spent 25 years in the political world, yes, she has experience. However, she hasn’t lived in the real world since 1992.

At this point, any continued criticisms are useless. It seems as Hillary has sung her swan song and will now fade beautifully into political obscurity.

What Happened Brian A. Morrison

Contributor

Winter has come, as has the tradition of reviewing some of the most meaningful, well written, and intellectually stimulating books of the past year. Unfortunately for me, this is not one of those books.

As we begin 2018, I find it appropriate to take a step back and reflect on my past year. I would like to take a moment to remember all of the lessons I have learned, the experiences I have had, acknowledge the mistakes I have made, and most importantly, cast aside all responsibility for my foolish actions and instead blame all of my problems on America’s uneducated and Russian meddling.

Embarking on a new year at Dartmouth, I faced countless challenges and also made many foolish decisions. Was it wise to play that seventh game of pong in a row the day before my Econ 10 midterm, (probably not), but obviously this mistake could not be my fault. Rather, it was the fault of the Russian sponsored advertisements for Keystone Light that filled my Facebook feed.

When the essay I completed in a caffeine fueled haze the hour before it was due received less than stellar Mr. Morrison is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – January 15, 2018

9

FEATURES

The Strange Death of Europe

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Over the course of the book, he visits the Mediterranean islands which were the first to bear the brunt of the migratory wave. He describes Lampedusa, an Italian island closer to Africa than to Sicily, which has been a major point of entry into Europe for migrants. Once they make landfall on the small island, the migrants, who have bought passage with human smugglers, rejoice because they have arrived in Europe and therefore are entitled to certain rights and protections, such as the immediate ability to claim asylum.

At a camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, he listens to the stories of migrants, predominantly young men from South Asian nations like Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who would give anything to make it to desired countries in Europe. He recounts his meeting of two Afghan brothers, one of whom was raped by the Taliban, and the other who declares: “We have seen everything.” Sometimes these human interests feel out of sync with the rest of the book, humanizing an otherwise impersonal threat. In these instances, Murray demonstrates a level of compassion and personal understanding that is rare if not absent for the rest of the book.

The Strange Death of Europe features the most well-known, negative stories and figures concerning

ples is the former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an immigrant from Somalia and survivor of female genital mutilation, who assimilated to the Dutch way of life, abandoned Islam, and became a center-right politician. Murray writes that she was ostracized from Dutch political life and unfairly condemned for her criticism of Islam and Dutch immigration policies. Another example he gives is Oriana Fallaci, a celebrated Italian journalist, who in her final years devoted her writing to the criticism of Islam and earned herself widespread praise as well as condemnation from the elites of her time. Murray also recalls the disgraced British politician Enoch Powell who dared to criticize the UK’s immigration policies in his infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech. Even though Enoch Powell was sacked as a shadow cabinet minister for his remarks, opinion polls taken at the time showed that three-quarters of the British population agreed with him. Through such examples, Murray attempts to show that European political leaders are not only disconnected from popular sentiment, but also from reality.

Thus, Murray condemns those who preach tolerance and multiculturalism, while turning a blind eye to the intolerance and mono-culturalism of the millions of Muslims entering Europe. A driving desire

most linked to the transit of Kurdi’s family, Europe heaped the blame for the child’s death upon itself.

In Murray’s general understanding, Europeans have been wearied by not only guilt but also the real demands of decades of conflict and hitherto unimaginable suffering in the 20th century. These worndown Europeans are troubled by pervasive self-doubt, which prevents them from behaving with any lasting decisiveness. Unlike the residents of Europe, foreign peoples, such as those of the Islamic world, have definite beliefs–Islam–and objectives, namely economic self-interest, that are driving their movement into Europe. Murray then circles back to link this contrast to his main argument about the threat of the migrants themselves. He posits that with these new arrivals, repressive social attitudes, and practices, like female genital mutilation, have been rearing their ugly heads in liberal European countries.

For instance, Murray endeavors to prove that Islam is opposed to the core Western value of free speech, citing many unfortunately deadly examples. He makes crucial mention of the fatwā issued by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, the author who dared to insult Islam in The Satanic Verses. At the time of that episode in 1989, many (non-Muslim) public figures in

he believes, has been deprived of its ability to contribute meaning and value to individual lives. He gives the Dada movement artwork Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, which was just a urinal, as an example of the vacuity of modern art. The European ruling elite, he believes, feels no sense of purpose, story, or drive, only tiredness, a lack of will, and self-hatred.

A sense of ambiguity and confusion regarding the migrant crisis is a prevailing theme throughout the book. While Murray makes use of many statistics in support of his arguments, he always includes a disclaimer. No one is sure exactly how many migrants have entered Europe without any legal right, such as an asylum claim, to do so.

There can be no accurate accounting of migrants who have evaded official detection and now reside in the insular Muslim communities of Europe. Another ambiguity is the broad sense of indigenous European uncertainty regarding immigration, found in both politicians and private citizens. Many mainstream and high-ranking European politicians, most notably German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have vacillated wildly on the subject, leading to inconsistent policy decisions. Although they may not be outwardly opposed to immigration, many Europeans are unsure about the visible impacts of Muslim mi-

personal responsibility, and individual liberty. It goes without saying that most if not all aspects of Murray’s life would be impossible under Sharia law. Despite his privileged background, Murray comes across in this book as a bit of a populist, stressing the importance of widespread native European sentiments and values over the machinations of a rarefied social and political elite.

While The Strange Death of Europe is far from perfect, it is an important book. It has put to words, in a well-documented and researched volume, the most insidious existential threat to Europe, since either Hitler’s bid for dominance or the Umayyad Caliphate’s invasion of Iberia and France in the 8th century. Murray’s argument can be considered overly complicated or excessively philosophical, but the depth of his analysis and the breadth of his accounting add considerably to the legitimacy of a position which until recently has been ostracized in many circles of public life. To pay it sufficient justice would be to say that The Strange Death of Europe is an in-depth book, more profound than can be sufficiently explicated in this brief review, as it examines not only Europe’s current crisis but also problems endemic to Western civilization and the human condition. The book does its best to make the immigration crisis a non-partisan issue, claiming that

While The Strange Death of Europe is far from perfect, it is an important book. It has put to words, in a welldocumented and researched volume, the most insidious existential threat to Europe, since either Hitler’s bid for dominance or the Umayyad Caliphate’s invasion of Iberia and France in the 8th century.

Islamic immigration en masse. He cites statistics often, and many of them are immediately jarring. For instance, he reveals that on some days in September 2015, as many as 10,000 migrants entered Sweden.

He frequently references the 2015 New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Germany and at one point describes the organized and long-lasting abuse of at least 1,400 young children by Muslim men in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham. He condemns the self-isolating Islamic enclaves which forge and harbor jihadists, like the well-known Belgian municipality of Molenbeek, which provided refuge to the masterminds of the November 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people, and the urban “no-go zones” in which Swedish women are at risk of being raped. He rejects the conciliatory and evasive attitude that most media outlets take towards those Muslim communities, such as blaming Molenbeek’s jihadist sympathies on the failures of urban planning.

Murray depicts a political class of EU leaders oblivious to ordinary Europeans’ concerns as well as to the true motives of the “refugees” pouring into Europe. He reveals the establishment political and media opposition to any form of dissent with unchecked immigration policies. One of his most notable examMr. Bring is a freshman at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

to not be perceived as racist exists for Europeans, remorseful because of their historical treatment of Jews and other minorities. In Murray’s view, guilt plays a significant role in the complicity of many Europeans, particularly for haunted Germans. This feeling forces their political class to avoid any policies that resemble those of wicked, heretical Nazism and Fascism and to condemn those “far-right” parties that threaten the status quo. This overriding sense of a haunting past clouds the judgment of a people, who so burdened by their feelings towards the past, cannot discern the many differences between the migrants of today and the refugees of yesteryear. This self-hatred is not limited to only those countries with a particularly dark and recent history of human rights abuse, former colonial powers too must strive to make amends for the crimes of their past, even if that means committing demographic suicide. The great and foreboding European historical burden is driving a conscience-stricken continent towards its self-selected demise.

One of Murray’s examples of this guilt was Europe’s reaction to the death of Aylan Kurdi, the red-shirted Syrian toddler who washed up on a Turkish beach, having fallen off a raft and drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. Instead of faulting the human traffickers who caused his death through deliberate negligence or the Turkish authorities who were

Rushdie’s native UK stated that his assassination would not be unacceptable, considering that he had, of course, impugned one of the “great religions.” Rushdie survived, but many of his peers were not so fortunate. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated in 2004 by a Dutch-born Moroccan Islamic fundamentalist for making a film entitled Submission, condemning the treatment of women under Islam. It’s impossible to forget the massacre of twelve writers and artists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, in January 2015. These examples, of which I have selected only a few, are devastating and compelling, his point well-made and convincing.

Later on, he shifts his focus to the weariness of Europeans to defend their traditions and values, specifically Christianity. Though an atheist himself, Murray has a secure attachment to the culture and ethics of the Anglican Church, something which informs his writing on the subject of The Strange Death of Europe. Murray writes that a lack of fervor in the Christian institutions in Europe is leading to a general absence of individual moral direction among native Europeans. This dearth of meaning and value is driving some into irreligion or atheism and others towards the absolute belief system of Islam. In general, Europeans are deprived of the value they once found in their religion, their culture, and their institutions. Even art,

grants on their societies and about what steps should be taken to curtail this demographic change. In the past, many Europeans believed the pros of immigration, like an influx of young, fertile people and cheap labor, outweighed the cons. Now they are not quite so sure.

Many of Murray’s assertions and observations resonated deeply with me and my understanding of Europe’s fatal predicament. The Paris I knew on a summer vacation in 2015 was not the Paris I inhabited in July 2017. In between these two visits, the city had experienced the devastating November 2015 attacks, not to mention the continuous arrival of thousands of new migrants and asylum-seekers. Last summer, the city was more hostile, more jaded, and the impact of the migrants more visible. Correspondingly, one of the most astonishing and significant things about The Strange Death of Europe for me is the recentness of its time frame. While Murray does venture back occasionally to the 1960s and ‘70s, the book focuses on many events that fall within my short lifetime, especially within the last five years.

Beyond the pages of The Strange Death of Europe, Murray’s investment in his argument becomes all the more apparent. A gay, Oxford-educated neoconservative writer and social commentator, he, like all of us, is a beneficiary of Western liberal democracy and of a society which values free speech,

the unchecked migration affects all Europeans and the reaction involves figures from across the political spectrum. However, Murray does not succeed in making many arguments that would appeal to a modern leftist, and with a few exceptions, advocates cultural and political stances that are undeniably right-wing. Nevertheless, it is well worth reading regardless of political leanings, and a real tour de force by one of the most intellectual and youthful voices in Western media today.

In the closing chapters of the book, Murray ponders what solutions, if there are any, exist for the migrant crisis. He states that the reinvigoration of European culture with a sense of purpose “need not be a proselytizing mission, but simply an aspiration of which we should be aware.” Murray suggests that widespread adoption of this aspiration is unlikely and his realistic prognosis is conflicted and uncertain. In his final remarks, Murray bemoans the indecisiveness and lack of consideration of politicians who will allow Europe to be irrevocably changed by migration. This change, he says, will be regretted by many Europeans, betrayed by a weak, self-loathing, and tired political establishment. At present, only one thing is certain: while the native peoples of Europe are beleaguered and divided, the Muslim migrants have common goals and values, rooted inextricably in their faith.

10 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

The Future is History

Rachel T. Gambee

Associate Editor

Like many political dissidents from totalitarian states, at least the living ones, Masha Gessen fled her homeland - twice. Born during the height of the Soviet Union, Gessen first fled her native Russia as a teenager in 1981 along with her family. In addition to being political dissidents themselves, Gessen’s family were also Ashkenazi Jews. During the latter years of tight Soviet control, prior to Gorbachev’s reforms, anti-Semitism was at an all-time high in Russia. The Gessens, fearing for their lives, emigrated to the United States.

Masha, however, would return to Russia just a decade later following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December of 1991. Despite having no formal training, Gessen began working as a reporter. She hoped to chronicle the death of the totalitarian state of her childhood, but instead Gessen found herself covering Vladimir Putin’s meteoric rise to power. In 2012 Gessen released her controversial book, The Man Without a Face. This scathing biography of Putin was published while Gessen was still living and working in Moscow. Not six months later, Gessen fled Russian for the second time along with her wife and their three young children, citing both fear of government retaliation for her book and concern about the rise of anti-LGBT sentiment spurred on

by Putin’s regime.

Ms. Gambee is a freshman at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

Her latest book, The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia, was released in October of 2017 to great critical acclaim; in November Gessen was awarded the National Book Award in nonfiction for this work. Gessen steps away from analyzing Russian leaders themselves, and instead investigates the society that keeps them in power.

Despite being nonfiction, the structure of The Future is History is not unlike that of a classical Russian novel. Gessen chooses seven characters whose lives she follows throughout the book; historical events are both explained in detail and shown as a backdrop for the characters’ lives. Three of these characters - Maria Arutyunyan, Lev Gudkov, Alexander Dugin - are introduced as adults. These individuals are peripheral members of the Russian Intelligentsia that began to gain traction in the early 90s.

Arutyunyan is a psychoanalyst, educated during a time when the study of psychology was seen as a threat to the USSR and as a distinctly Western interest. During Gorbachev’s perestroika period and the subsequent dissolution of the USSR, Arutyunyan was able to bring Western lecturers to speak to psychologically traumatized Russian Society. Arutyunyan watches these opportunities close under Putin’s government and her hope for the future well-being of Russian citizens dwindles. She becomes obsessed with the Freudian concept of a death drive: the inevitable human desire for death and de-

struction. Arutyunyan begins to apply this concept nationally and to believe that Russia itself is actively seeking its own destruction.

Lev Gudkov is a sociologist and data scientist. He worked extensively under the famous sociologist Yuri Levada founder of the Levada Center, once a state sanctioned institute for sociological studies but currently labeled by Putin’s government as a “foreign agent.”

Their area of interest was a phenomenon that they coined “homo sovieticus.” Homo Sovieticus, as they identified it, was a creature that functioned as a mindless puppet of the state. Their support for all governmental rhetoric and policy was enthusiastic and their ability to agree with even the most logically incongruous government reasoning was boundless.

They were the perfect subjects of a totalitarian state. Levada and Gudkov adapted American personality tests to allow them to test a sample of the Soviet population and determine what portion of the people qualified as Homo Sovieticus.

After the first study was conducted in the late 80’s, Levada and Gudkov were quite optimistic. Very few Russians fit the model of Homo Sovieticus.

The study appeared to confirm their initial hypothesis: that the existence both Homo Sovieticus and consequently the Soviet Union would be short lived. Levada died in 2006 with this hope still somewhat intact. Gudkov, however, continues their work today. He has witnessed the rise of Putin along with the resurrection of Homo Sovieticus. As his recent studies show, Russians of today feel rising levels of fear and contempt for the West and they nearly categorically support the Russian government.

Most alarmingly however is the new surge of adoration

for tidbits from western books or studies. On one occasion Dugin went as far as to read an entire book by projecting slides taken of its pages onto the wall in his kitchen. He initially has nothing but admiration for western ideals and the thinkers behind them. However, without a grounded education Dugin floats freely from ideology to ideology without fully understanding any of them. Eventually he develops a sort of farright nationalism that he calls National Bolshevism. This is more commonly referred to today as Putinism. Dugin comes

Despite being nonfiction, the structure of The Future is History is not unlike that of a classical Russian novel. Gessen chooses seven characters whose lives she follows throughout the book; historical events are both explained in detail and shown as a backdrop for the characters’ lives. full circle as the intellectual father of the current regime and now finds himself arguing for the very kind of intellectual regulation that he loathed in his youth.

The four other focal characters - Lyosha, Masha, Seryozha, and Zhanna - play a much larger role in the narrative, but nearly nonexistent roles in Russian politics. Born in the mid 1980’s they are introduced to the reader as young children being raised at the dawn of a new era in Russia. Lyosha and Masha have no connections to power whatsoever, while Seryozha and Zhanna are only connected thought their family members. All of them, however, find themselves at political cross roads as they come of age in a changing Russia.

Lyosha grows up in a very conservative Russian community in which he struggles to identify himself as a gay man.

Originally it seems that sexual

Through these characters Gessen’s novel is accessible to both those who vividly remember the days of the Soviet Union and young students who loathe the tumultuous political landscape. for iconic Russian despots. In a study Gudkov conducted in the spring of 2017, Vladimir Putin polled second when participants were asked to name “the greatest person to have ever lived.” The first place spot went to Joseph Stalin.

Alexander Dugin is as close as this book comes to an antihero. He begins as sympathetic character similar to his two counterparts: an outcast intellectual who defies government restriction in favor of the free dissemination of ideas. Gessen describes his days as a student where Dugin would scrounge through libraries and archives

the 1980’s the Soviet government, who had still not been successful in replacing the male population that they lost during the Second World War, instituted a number of policies meant to encourage women to have children outside of wedlock. Masha was one such child.

She was raised largely by her grandparents while her mother worked as a tutor in Moscow.

Their family was of the first to oppose the Soviet’s, something that Masha took to hear even as a small child. The fall of the USSR is a time of great joy for Masha’s family, however over

society advocated by the soviets will make Lyosha life easier.

However, as Putin rises to power he shapes the Russian Orthodox Church into an instrument of political power. Putin is thus able to brand homosexuality as not just sinful, but as a danger to the state. Members of the LGBT community are seen as anti-Russian and therefore deserving of persecution. Lyosha gives the reader a first-hand account of dangers and trials of life as a gay man in totalitarian Russia.

Masha was similarly born in a much more secular society than she now lives in. During

the next two decades watches as her mother and grandmother, both highly educated women fall in status as a new brand of totalitarianism, steeped in hyper-masculinity, takes hold of the country.

Seryozha and Zhanna are significant because of their family.

Seryozha is the grandson of the great Soviet thinker Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, architect of Gorbachev’s reform policies attempting the avoid the breakdown of the USSR. Zhanna comes of age on the opposite side of the political spectrum as the daughter of the political activist Boris Nemtsov. These characters represent the crux of Gessen’s argument – without active resistance a society will always fall into totalitarianism.

Unlike their politically engaged families, both Seryozha and Zhanna distance themselves from the world of politics when they are young. This does not appear dangerous while Russia is opening itself up to democracy during the 1990’s. As Putin comes to power, however, both characters are forced to reexamine their intentional distance from the government because of the way in which the nefarious actions of the Putin regime effect their lives.

Through these characters Gessen’s novel is accessible to both those who vividly remember the days of the Soviet Union and young students who loathe the tumultuous political landscape. Moreover, it is a remarkably timely book for all Americans. For the first time in half a century, Americans have decided that Russia makes a fine bedfellow. Regardless of political affiliation, or their feeling on Russia, all Americans should at least face the truth – the evil empire that we fought under Reagan is alive and well in Russia today.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – January 15, 2018 11

FEATURES

A Pope and a President

Alexander Rauda

Associate Editor

The valiance and devotion of President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II defined the winning battle against global communism in the latter half of the 20 th century.

How these men interacted with each other and cooperated to take down the Soviet Union is masterfully presented in Paul Kengor’s most recent offering: A Pope and a President. From page one to page six hundred and forty-eight, Kengor manages to paint an ambitious portrayal of the President and the Pope. The necessary background, needed to understand the motivations of each man, commences from the sighting of Our Lady of Fátima in 1917, all the way to the Soviet domination of Poland which lasted forty-two years. Within the first two parts of the book, Kengor details the crimes against humanity against the Polish people by the atheistic communist government. From murder to torture to mass propaganda, the Soviet government wanted to exterminate the faith of Poland much like Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Polish people.

It was in these conditions that John Paul II, born Karol Józef Wojtyła, managed to find his devotion to God and human rights. However, John Paul II originally wanted to be an actor, like Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Rauda is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

The book strives to indicate many similarities between Reagan and John Paul II. Both had their fathers die at a young age, suffered many hardships, and both were deep believers in God. Kengor does a fantastic job portraying the parallels between the two men without it becoming melodramatic or kitsch. Reagan, who had a relatively easier life than Wojtyła, soon found himself facing the same communistic threat at home. A supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, he was shocked when many of his liberal friends were against criticizing the Soviet Union. While it was true that the imminent threat was Nazi Germany, Reagan was wise enough to see that soon the Soviet Union would become the next enemy of democracy. This foresight, as Kengor shows, was due in part to Reagan’s piety.

He knew that Marxism specifically asks for the destruction of the church. Karl Marx once said: “Communist begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.” The Soviets tried to push their agenda in all of their conquered or occupied territories, and Poland was no exception. Reagan’s Christian faith heavily influenced his worldview and ultimately, the projects he decided to take on. Heartbroken when his first wife asked for a divorce, Reagan never looked back when he married Anne Fran-

ces Robbins, more famously known as Nancy Reagan. Ronald Reagan knew that one of the main reasons for the Pilgrims’ voyage was a desire for religious freedom, which led to the conclusion that America had to defend religious values not only at home but abroad.

With the Soviet Union trying to destroy Christian civilization at all costs, Reagan knew he had to lead the crusade against Communism. Furthermore, Kengor foreshadows the Divine Plan (DP), which was molded in part by the struggles of the Polish people and John Paul II. This devotion to living morally brought him condemnation from his liberal friends and future historians. Just like John Paul II, Reagan found his devotion to human rights and the right to life from the Bible. Paul Kengor does not hold back when it comes to role religion played into the motivations of the two men.

When John Paul II became a priest, and later an archbishop, the book shows the many challenges other religious figures faced in Poland. Perhaps the book’s most engaging parts are when Kengor describes the lengths that the Soviet puppet government in Poland went through to slander religion.

In one case, the secret police forged a letter between a priest and a female friend, trying to blackmail the priest by painting him as an adulterer. The communist government would also have controlled opposition when trying to shut down masses and other religious events. However, the communists did not always resort to misinformation. Father Jerzy Popieluzko was beaten to death so brutally that the only way to recognize his corpse was through his clothing. John

knows the limitations of his work but continues determined to see the document face the light of day. Ultimately only a theory, although heavily bolstered by the most serious circumstantial evidence, is told in the book. However, the consequences of releasing such a document during the Cold War would have been enough to cause World War III. After describing the life and struggles of both men, Kengor dives into the meetings Ronald Reagan and John Paul II had. Each meeting was filled with theological discussion on the Soviet Union and the role of America in taking down communism. John Paul II had a major interest in American history such that he fully understood the role religion played in the development of the United States.

Reagan was so invested in the discussions that after meeting with John Paul II, he refused to take questions on the tax plans. Although Reagan was a Protestant, Kengor knew that the division between the faith of the two men did not carry much weight in these meetings. Instead, it ignited them, as both parties showed respect towards one another. Reagan knew that all faiths were welcomed in the White House, and essential in taking down atheistic communism.

The book’s scale and ambition are not only its major strengths but also the cause of its shortcomings. When discussing Reagan’s early life, Kengor describes the role the Venerable Fulton Sheen, an American Catholic archbishop, played in cultivating religious media in the United States. While Sheen undoubtedly played a significant role in upholding

Overall, A Pope and A President beautifully portrays the relationship between two defenders of Western civilization. Kengor is fully aware of the role conservatism played in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Paul II had a huge torch to pick up when he became pope, and would always pay tribute to the martyrs of Poland. His resistance to international communism, however, also led to an assassination attempt in 1981.

Kengor posits that the Soviet Union had a role in the shooting of John Paul II. Even the CIA does not explicitly state that the Soviet Union played a role and part of this leads to Kengor’s investigation.

One of his main pleas is for the release of a document that has left only crumbs in the archives of the CIA and the Reagan presidential library. Like any good historian, Kengor

religious and conservative values, his extensive mention distracts from Kengor’s message overall. The book could have used less emphasis on Sheen, among other improvements. At certain parts, the book does not know if it wants to be about the failures of communism, the Cold War, or the development of Catholic doctrine. Certain details, like those about the martyrs of Poland and Reagan’s Hollywood career, add important background information while others, such as Sheen episode, seem to distract more than they should. For example, the sections on Catholic doctrine

slows down the book, and the fact that it is in-between more interesting sections like beginnings of communism and the early of life of John Paul II doesn’t help. All the topics in the book are no doubt essential to understanding the meetings between Reagan and John Paul II. However, Kengor occasionally becomes a little too invested in them and goes off on a tangent.

Overall, A Pope and A President beautifully portrays the relationship between two defenders of Western civilization. Kengor is fully aware of the role conservatism played in the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was conservatism and not liberalism that shattered the Iron Curtain in Europe. Ronald Reagan’s refusal to give in to communism’s demands is a lesson that many presidents can learn from.

When Winston Churchill declared that England would never surrender against Nazi Germany, Reagan had the same attitude towards the Soviet Union. This is the attitude that allowed democracy and freedom to win in the Cold War. However, Reagan was not all blood and iron. Reagan was also a master communicator and his diplomacy led to meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev. These meetings resulted in a decrease in nuclear weapons, and these meetings were influenced by the conversations between John Paul II and Reagan. The Divine Plan was in full swing at the time the Soviet Union collapsed. In the end, diplomacy and military strength were only the final nails in the coffin of the evil empire.

The Soviet Union’s collapse was so pathetic that Gorbachev ended up appearing in a Pizza Hut commercial. To Gorbachev’s credit, the Soviet Union did not burst into to civil war and its downfall was relatively anticlimactic.

Communism’s failure and wickedness should come as no surprise to the readers of the book. Over a period of over seventy years, the Soviet Union pillaged, violated, degraded, and exploited many nations across its dominion.

Poland bore the brunt of both Soviet and Nazi aggression in World War II, losing over a fifth of its population, and endured under communist oppression for many years after.

However, it is undoubtedly the faith of the Polish people that allowed them to survive such hardships. Ronald Reagan and especially John Paul II knew this. Paul Kengor shows how their struggles and beliefs brought them together to take down atheistic communism for the benefit of all mankind.

12 Monday – January 15, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY DANIEL M. BRING

“There will soon be only five kings left: the Kings of England, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades, and Clubs.”

— King Farouk, deposed as Egyptian monarch in 1952 “Small minds cannot grasp great ideas; to their narrow comprehension, their purblind vision, nothing seems really great and important but themselves.”

— Sir James George Frazer “The black people I knew came from different places and backgrounds–social, economic, even ethnic–yet the color of our skin was somehow supposed to make us identical in spite of our differences. I didn’t buy it. Of course we had all experienced racism in one way or another, but that did not mean we had to think alike.”

— The Hon. Clarence Thomas “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.”

— Gen. William Sherman “Today’s headlines and history’s judgement are rarely the same.”

— Condoleezza Rice “We have much more in common with other people than we have apart.”

— Secretary Ben Carson “I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.”

— Booker T. Washington

“All our troubles come from not being able to be alone.”

— Blaise Pascal “In war there is no substitute for victory.”

— Gen. Douglas MacArthur “It’s time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain’t working.

Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job.”

— Herman Cain “You know, conservatism is not a bad thing. It’s not a pejorative.”

— Michael Steele “We have to attack those things which stand in the way of American progress. And what stands in the way of American progress right now is the federal government.”

— Senator Tim Scott “I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.”

— President Ulysses S. Grant “Ameirca will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

—President Abraham Lincoln “A dream doesn’t become reality through magic; it takes sweat, determination, and hard work.”

— Colin Powell

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

Ingredients

• •

“The whole art of war consists in getting what is on the other side of the hill.”

— Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”

— President Abraham Lincoln “In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute.”

— The Hon. Thurgood Marshall “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”

— Thomas Sowell “Every American has the duty to obey the law and the right to expect that the law will be enforced.”

— Robert F. Kennedy “Learn to think continentally.”

One glass each of Korbel Champagne, Kirkland’s Signature Pinot Grigio, Barefoot Chardonnay, Franzia Moscato Rosa, and Woodbridge by Robert Mondavi White Zinfandel Ice cubes to taste Bourbon and a .45 to shoot

Karen sighed and rubbed her temples. She pulled out the morning paper, turned to the book review section, and read up on Oprah’s latest recommendation— a mediocre hodge-podge of life-affirming platitudes written by a divorcée whose newfound wealth gave her life meaning, fame, and several pearl necklaces. “Live It, Like it, Love Yourself.”

Coming back from every soccer and ballet practice for the next two weeks, Karen listened to her book on tape. Finally, the kids were at their grandparents— today was *her* day. A day for Karen. Karen’s day. A day for self-Karen. Karen snapped her pocketbook shut, grabbed her minivan keys, and off to Walmart she went. As she walked through the hallowed aisles of the bastion of capitalism, she reflected on the week she had. On Monday, she had to sit in the second row of her spin class instead of the first. On Tuesday, her divorce lawyer called and said that her alimony and child support checks would only cover the 5-day cruise to the Bahamas instead of the 7-day cruise. On Wednesday, there was traffic dropping Julia off at ballet so she missed the first 7 minutes of the Bachelor. On Thursday, Bobby simply refused to eat his broccoli. Then, on Friday, her colorist made her hair more light-honey auburn than medium-honey-ombre auburn. Karen filled her cart with wine, solo cups, and cucumbers just like the book said and sped all the way home.

She filled each cup up with ice cubes and wine, let the mixture breathe for a bit, and asked Siri to turn on her “Rest and Relaxation Spa-Style” Apple Music Playlist. Like at any classy wine tasting, Karen chugged each glass in record time, remarking on the complexities of the bouquet in each wine to her empty 5 bedroom, 6.5 bath humble abode. Unsatisfied with her relaxation she pulled the falling cucumbers off of her eyes and barreled over to Dave’s desk, pulling out a bottle of bourbon and a pistol.

Killing the bottle of Old Crow Kentucky, she grabbed and loaded her exhusband’s gun, and shot it wildly out the kitchen window, killing Mrs. Jones’s corgi. When the police showed up, Karen sighed, rubbed her temples, and yowled “Ugh it’s not my fault. The gun just went off. It’s my ex-husband’s fault he should have just taken it and given me more money. And the book made me do it. This is all Oprah’s fault. And the failing New York Times. And my iPhone. She recommended the book, they reviewed it, and Siri read it to me. They’re all out to get me. It’s not my fault. My life is just really, really hard. You wouldn’t get it.”

— Scotch Cara

— Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others.”

— Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

ADVERTISEMENT

The White Whine •

“Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.”

— Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.