Facts in Five Books

This is a very easy read . It is disturbing and seems to be well researched in so far as I have been able (and willing) to verify. I believe this is a must read for every American. It is clear that this book is not irrational bashing of Islam and is generally accurate. No open minded thinking person can simply ignore the problems presented. Mark Steyn is as entertaining as he is provocative.

This "book" is a xenophobic and racist screed by a phobic and phony author. There are no citations or bibliography because the whole vitriolic fantasy is the product of a fevered, backward, partisan imagination. To tag this with the word "truth" is about as accurate as tagging George Bush with "wise." If you find this book as offensive as I do, try something with more heft and accuracy on the subject of population change--try Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Granted you have to use your brain to read that book. But the rewards are great.
"America Alone" deserves no stars at all.

This is an excellent book explained with humor. Every American should read it and at least every politician on Capitol Hill!

I am utterly fascinated and bewildered by the information contained in this book. While I have no way of knowing if the statistics used are valid--I presume they are--this creates a feeling in me that I may have done the wrong thing in bringing 3 children into the world, which will clearly be a different place before they leave it. This book is humorous and enlightening and should be required reading for everyone in America, especially the attendees at the Democrat Convention. Of course, they wouldn't believe it. A goodly number would probably welcome Mr. Steyn's description of the world at the end of the century. God help them!

I very highly recommend this book to all who care about the world we in the West will leave to our children and the generations to follow.

This book gives a very good summary of the dilema facing Western Civilation. According to Mr. Steyn, we in the West have gotten into a bind because of our unwillingness to reproduce and our inability (or unwillingness)to defend our culture. Mr. Steyn is not so much critical of Islamic Culture as he is very pointed in drawing attention to the differences between Islam and Western Civilation. I am with Mr. Steyn in NOT opting for the nihilism of political correctness and seeing Western Civilation go down the drain of history.

Most of Europe does not agree with Mr. Steyn. Steyn points-out that Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Italy heve all but surrendered their sovereignty to Radical Islam and a suicidal strain of political correctness. Unless major changes occur in the direction of events, the foundations of Western Civilation will no longer exist. This will happen within the lifetimes of our children.

A point that Mr. Steyn makes repeatedly is that Islam by it's own definition, and according to is own holy texts is exclusionary. You are either part of the Umma (the body of Islamic believers), or your life is forfiet. There is no assimilation or accomodation. Islam devides the world in to regions - Dar al Islam, the "house of Islam" where Islam rules, and Dar al-Harb, the "House of War" where the non-Islamic world is to be subjegated by whatever means neccessary. Guess which part we live in...

The title of Mr. Steyns book, "America Alone" is in part derived from the fact that among western nations, only the US has a birth rate at the bare minimum replacement rate of 2.1 live births per family. (I have 6 children, so some of the slackers are covered, but we need to get to work as a culture.)


The Radical Islamic culture is one which practices the travisties of child marriage, virtual slavery of all women, the vocal call for the death of all Jews and Christians, so-called honor killings, murder by homicide bomber: All and all it is a putrid feast attended by only the most depraved souls. Radical Islam needs to be marginalized. If, as we are repeatedly told, this does not represent the "Vast Majority" of Muslims, then let the "Vast Majority" denounce the savagery and barbarity loudly and clearly. If they are unwilling to do so, then all more is the reason to read Steyn's book. Changeing Western culture and mores, as is happenning all-over the Western world, is not the solution.

Mark Steyn has a biting sense of humor, but does not throw-around the kind of slime and vitriol I've seen aimed at him in some of the 1-star reviews on this page. Most of those reviewers have not read the book, or at any rate do not address the book. Just a lot rant and bile.

One need look no further than the Canadian Human Rights Commissions for the sort of Islamofacist censorship aimed at silencing honest debate. Suits and complaints aimed at Steyn and other commentators have become all to common and are supported by the PC establishment within the Canadian Government. If this does not demonstrate the dangers that Steyn warns of in his book, then nothing will convince you.

It does not surprise me that neocons are accusing Liberals of being fascists. It simply implies that neocons have recognized that they themselves are promoting fascism in government.

One of Karl Rove's mantras is to accuse your opponent of your own worst failings.

I bought two copies. One to lend and one to keep. This is one long and excellent retelling of how the left has subverted history and done a fair job of subverting America. It is to weep to consider that this isn't common knowledge and shouted from our rooftops. Freedom!

It is very unfortunate that people use the review process to attack a book which they are very unlikely to have read. It is always fascinating that the very same people who so often lecture to all of us about "tolerance" are the least so. It is particularly bothersome that Amazon chose to use one short, positive review and one very lengthy negative review. Despite some of the reviews, Mr. Goldberg's book is fair. Kool-aid drinkers from both sides of the aisle need not bother because neither side would much like what they are reading unless they are interested in truth. Whoever you are, whatever your notions, if you are opened minded, you will likely realize some of those notions require re-examination. This book is particularly helpful if you have been trying to educate yourself as much as possible about American history, have done much other reading, and are sincerely interested in seeking the truth. If you've been asking yourself: Just when did this country start to "go off the rails", you will find a lot of answers. Other well-written books about the history of Progressives, socialists, and Marxists support the documented information in this book. A couple of others I have read, and I have no idea from what political persuasion these gentlemen come, would be the very well documented book by Ronald J. Pestritto, Professor at the University of Dallas Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (American Intellectual Culture)and another, by Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Again, despite all of the partisan reviews, if you read at minimum, the three books noted, you will see the dots connecting. Mr. Goldberg is not about finger pointing or name calling, he's about laying out, step by step, point A to point B, etc. Michael Mann's review, in itself, is to be disregarded because he accuses Goldberg of leaving out labeling so-called "Conservatives" as the "f-word", like Richard Nixon. Mr. Mann has revealed his own lack of knowledge of historical facts or that he didn't read the book closely, or well. A number of so-called "conservatives" are mentioned, including Pres. George W. Bush. Many aspects of Pres. Bush's policies, do have, in fact, elements of the "f-word", as Mr. Mann calls it. It is a fallacy of the left or perhaps a lack of much contemplation, that every individual with an "R" behind their title in elected office are automatically conservative. Richard Nixon was not conservative, he was a "liberal" Republican. Pres. Bush's fiscal policies and "compassionate conservatism" alone disqualify him from being considered truly conservative. In order to make that assessment, as a conservative, I did much reading, but didn't arrive at my conclusions until I read this book. Until or unless people are willing to start "calling out" the wrong they see in their leadership, regardless to which political party they belong, it's hard to imagine how much, if anything, will come about to change the high amount of dissatisfaction and distrust most Americans feel about their government. To fully get one's mind around the definition of fascism, how it has weaved its way through history, and most importantly, what it means for freedom, this book is vital.

I liked the picture on the dust jacket. I opened the book; read the introduction, and even understood it. So far so good. Then I started reading a bunch of words in the chapters with all kinds of names of people I've never heard of. They influenced Mussolini, Wilson, Hitler, FDR, LBJ. And it kept going like that. I was looking for more one-lined Ann Coluteresque zingers like: Wilson imprisoned more political dissidents than Mussolini; FDR detained many times more non-enemy combatants (Americans mostly) than has GW Bush detained guys with guns found in combat areas; it takes a village to raise an idiot. Those kind of one-liners. Perhaps they could have been deployed at the start of each chapter to focus my meager attention span. Ultimately this book was just too smart for me. At least when I watch the Glenn Beck Show and see Jonah Goldberg as a guest, I understand what he is saying. Perhaps those thousands of Lefty Liberal College Professors should read this book, but they won't (can't be caught with it and risk tenure). As for me, I'm waiting for Mr. Goldberg to come out with a pop-up picture book.

I have been looking for more indepth study of liberalism written by someone who isn't one. This works well for me.

Since the title of this non-fiction book is World War IV, you have to wonder what happened to World War III and how you missed it.

Well, the author, Norman Podhoretz, past editor of "Commentary Magazine," postulates that World War III began in 1947 and ended in 1989. That period is better known as "the cold war." World War IV became "our moment and our mission" on September 11, 2001 with the terrorist attack on New York City and is still in progress. However, as he points out, earlier terrorist acts led us up to that place and time.

In his book, he has brought together many opinions, excerpts from articles and speeches that address our involvement in current military actions. In the chapter entitled "The Mainstream Media," the author asserts that as progress grows in Iraq, the media coverage and support goes down. In other chapters, he lists three schools of thought-or "devotees of the Vietnam syndrome"-that have a collective interest in our failure in Iraq: the Isolationists, the Liberal Internationalists and the Realists.

Originally written and issued in 2007, World War IV has been reprinted with a 2008 postscript that is very timely. The author has assumed that Obama has gained the Democratic nomination for president and proceeds to discuss the differences between Obama and McCain on their views and strategies dealing with the Iraq war and, what he calls," Islamofascism." He does not address domestic issues but keeps a good focus on Iraq/Islamofascism, some of our foreign policies and relationships with other foreign governments, at the same time putting them into an historical perspective.

World War IV is very readable and not difficult to comprehend. The author provides a good historical background and a broad perspective on many of the foreign policy issues. Whether or not you agree with the author's views and analysis (he states that he is neoconservative), this book is still very informative and useful in gaining more insight into some of the arguments surrounding the war in Iraq and some of our other foreign involvements.

Armchair Interviews says: A very timely read.

Relatively short, it is actually the extension of an essay published previously. At heart, it is a heavily polemical defense of the Bush Administration's view of the War on Terror. Not entirely convincing, Mr. Podhoretz is on firmer ground when he talks about the U.S. cultural and political debates than the actual nuts and bolts of foreign policy. In the latter area, it's clear that he's very intelligent and well-read, but nonetheless essentially a precocious amateur. In my opinion, Mr. Podhoretz also demonstrates a better understanding of the ideological and moral opposition to the Bush Administration's policies coming from its left than he does of that coming from its opponents on the right.

Its hard to believe in 2008 that so many racists still feel comfortable
spouting hate against 1 million people. 99% of whom are innocent and good.
Yes, I have been to the middle east and not as a colonial occupier with a gun but as a traveler who respected their culture. I don't believe the
WEST is the best philosophy. That is juvenile type of thinking. You boys like to play at war without contemplating the long term effect of everyone involved. Shame on all of you!
Ms. Podhoretz is beyond shame. His belief system is as extreme as Osama Bin Laden without a doubt. People who are that arrogant glory only in there own light. THIS BOOK sucked and good thing I got it second hand!

The title of the review says it all. If you want to kill scary brown people on behalf of hardliner Zionists in Israel and the Lobby, then keep drinking the neoconservative Kool Aid. The whole world knows that the so-called War on Terror was conducted using already created off the shelf plans (PNAC), and is about US-Israeli domination of all resources in the region, from oil in Iraq to water in southern Lebanon.

Face reality or Drink the Trotsky loving Pod Man's Kool Aid and continue to be conned by the same old Wilsonian interventionist myth about America's role in making the world safe for democracy. Whatever keeps Israel happy and gets Lockheed its welfare check, Nanny/Surveillance/Police State at home and endless war abroad, all wrapped in the flag, soaked in patriotic self-love, and delivered by an all powerful executive. Rah rah rah, everyone loves a winner, nobody likes a loser, especially The American People. That is what "Conservatism" has become.

A book called The Much too Promised Land by Aaron David Miller makes Carter out to be a hero by talking about his success at Camp David but deletes any mention of how Carter let the pro-Israeli Shah fall and the anti-Israeli Khomeini rise! This book shows how Carter is indeed responsible for Khomeini's and now even Ahmadinejad's bad succcess!

Grant's _Corrupted Science_ gives several examples of how the scientific process, and scientific research, has been interfered with.

Sometimes researchers fake results for various reasons ranging from flat out dishonesty, to pressure from co-workers or superiors. Scientists have also been so convinced that they are observing one thing, that they are resistant, even when proven wrong, to more accurate observations.

In other cases, however, researchers are not permitted to present their results, or even continue to work on various projects because of outside pressures. These influences can come from societal factions, government, business, religious groups or even the scientific peer-review process itself (p. 219). Their influence can be as subtle as a mass media interpretation of a research project, or as direct as denial of funding, or as bad as direct threats to scientists' careers (or lives!)

_Corrupted Science_ gives lots of examples. The usual classics are here (Cold Fusion, Intelligent Design, Piltdown Man, etc.) along with some that I had not heard of (N-rays anybody? How about Menstrual Rays?) But although some of the examples presented are downright comical, others are serious business (medical quackery, tobacco companies covering up the fact that smoking causes cancer, etc.)

Of course the worst thing that can happen is outside forces (usually a government) becoming so powerful in general, and having such an undue influence over science, that only certain ideas are allowed to be promulgated; anything out of line with the government-sanctioned ideology is ruthlessly stamped out. The obvious examples given in the book are Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. The author puts George W. Bush's anti-science activities (such as suppressing global warming research and promoting "creation science") in this category. Personally, I think that's a bit much; as bad as Mr. Bush's actions in this area are, they are more in line with those examples found in the "Ideology Trumps Science" chapter. (No one gets sent to Guantanamo Bay for opposing Bush's stand on global warming...at least yet....). Grant's politics peep out in various other places, particularly in the "Military Madness" and "Ideology Trumps Science" chapters.

In general, there is a lot of material in this book's 336 pages. It may have flowed better in places if some of the examples were recategorized. (For example, was Pons and Fleischmann's "discovery" of cold fusion a matter of fraud, or was it more like the two scientists "seeing what they wanted to see"?)

Anyone interested in the history of science, and its battles with other societal forces, should take a look at this book.

This little book is packed with quite a bit of interesting informational topics, exposing political schemes to bend the truth about scientific logic.I agree with about ninty-five percent of his research findings.Yet,on a few topics he does not elaborate enough evidence to support his arguments.There are no foot-notes.There are many books listed to support his writing though.I would have given the book ,four and a half stars.I would still read it again for the vast wealth of information on scientific hoaxes,backed by shady business interests or political regimes of ill-repute.Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the truth will always shine.

From a blurb on the author's website:

"The concluding chapter's three sections---"Hitler's Germany," Stalin's Russia," and "Bush's America"---examine the most egregious cases of willful scientific subornment by powerful national governments for ideological and religious purposes. Grant details efforts by the Bush administration to hide the facts of global warming, a fraud perpetrated to safeguard the enormous profits of the energy industry, and to discredit the theory of evolution for ideological purposes.
Grant argues convincingly that the harm done by the Bush Administration will take generations to repair. This is a disturbing, but inescapable conclusion, and Grant's copious research drives home the reality that ideologues have been in charge of American scientific institutions since 2001 as a result of Bush's dubious electoral victory."


Wow! I was leafing through your book today at Barnes and Noble and just had to check out what you had to say about global warming. When I saw "...Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Bush's America..." I needed to read no further in order to know your position. Of course scientists shouldn't mix their science with their politics, should they? Hitler, Stalin, and Bush? How `bout Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Bush? Attila the Hun, Idi Amin, and Bush? Mao, Klaus Barbee, and Bush? You were subtle, but I think I figured out the point you were trying to get across, you sly dog!

Only one thing could top this for irony: what if you global warming people are wrong? What if your data have been skewed by... Ideology? Or, better still, by $$$ in the form of grants??? Of course, we all know this couldn't happen because there's a... (what's the word?) Consensus! That's it! A consensus that the earth is warming, that this warming is caused by man, and that it will destroy civilization as we know it. This is... inescapable! Everybody knows this. If you don't, then you're a stinky head!

And the sheer dubiousness of Bush's electoral victory! Why, I've never in my life seen anything so dubiously dubious. And the dubification has, as your reviewer rightly asserts, dubified into ideologues being in charge of all, not just some but all, of our American scientific institutions since 2001 because now no scientist believes in global warming. No; that's not right. I mean, there's a consensus among scientists in favor of global warming. And the scientists are ideologues who are in the bag for Bush and don't believe in it though there's a consensus... wait, that's not right...

Anyway, thanks for a great book and a great encapsulation of just how Bush's dubious electoral victory has destroyed the earth.

All throughout Grant's book, the author reviews how scientists and governments have corrupted science in order to achieve political and/or ideological goals. All that is well and good until the book takes a bizarre twist in failing to recognize the global warming scare as corrupted science itself, which it obviously is to those who do not allow the likes of Al Gore and the mainstream media do their thinking for them.

It is clear that John Grant is a Goremonger who is fully committed to the global warming cult. And a cult is what it is in that it presents a prediction of an apocolyptic fate unless we do exactly what the global warming alarmists say. Grant repeats Gore's assertion that the debate on global warming is "over" and that there is absolutely no disagreement at all that global warming trends is man made and will doom us all, which is how cultists supress dissent. That misconception is easy for the alarmists to promote since the mainstream media is fully in their corner on this issue and never give any dissenters any exposure whatsoever.

That is why it is little known that more than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal, calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, The Leipzig Declaration and finally the Oregon Petition which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.

Also, carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.

The Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for hundreds of millions of years and will continue to do so until the end of time in accordance to solar cycles. It is by no means static. To believe that we can get the average temperature to a certain level and actually keep it there indefinitely is absurd and assumes god-like abilities.

The global warming scare is a scam used in an attempt to hold people in thrall to big government, raise taxes, and micro-manage every aspect of everyone's lives. I am glad that we live in a democracy that allows scrutiny, debate, and dissent over this topic that John Grant would pass off as "corrupted science."

Corrupted science is at the same time an excellent book and a terrible book (but most of the book is excellent). I will note two examples that show Grant either did his homework or relied on those that did. His discussion of Galileo is very accurate. He wrote that "it is less the whole truth to say that Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the Catholic Church for insisting that the earth was not the center of the universe" and that the church was not especially antagonistic to this idea, but just wanted to wait until the evidence was in, and in Galileo's day it clearly was not. Also Galileo went up against one of the greatest astronomers that ever lived, Ptolemy and the church sided with the science establishment.
Grant also got the Bruno case correct (page 151). He wrote that "one of the classic tales within the history of science is that of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), [was] burnt at the stake for his support of the new Copernican cosmology... the story of Bruno as a martyr in the name of science - with the implicit corollary that the Church condemned scientific progress - is false." (`p. 151). Grant adds that in more modern times Bruno would have been regarded as a (probably) harmless lunatic" On the other hand, his discussion of the modern Intelligent Design movement is irresponsible. For example, in his discussion of the persecution of Darwin Doubters he concludes it is not happening and the few claims commonly presented as evidence of this problem are bogus. In fact thousands of documented cases exist and he cited only 4, all inaccurately, and 3 he got from Ron Numbers' book. He then, to prove no problem exists, cited 4 cases of Darwin Skeptics who were granted PhDs without problems from schools such as Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley. The problem is the cases cited go as far back as over a half century ago and he ignores the many well documented cases that have occurred more recently. To answer this question requires surveying the 3,000 or so Darwin Doubters listed on various web sites and ask them if they have experienced problems due to their stand in this area. This has been done, and we now have clear evidence that persecution is a major problem. Further, this claim has been carefully documented. All of this evidence Grant ignores, or worse, is not aware of. I could go on but will not. Aside from this chapter and one other chapter the rest of the book was first rate.