Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

pinktriangle.org.uk

Francis Wheen

How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World

If we hear a viewpoint repeated enough then we might begin to think that there must be something in it. Well, if you find yourself being pulled in that direction then I would recommend reading How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions by Francis Wheen

It seems to me that Wheen has two objectives in writing this book, firstly to show how the voice of unreason has increased in the last quarter century, and secondly to defend the values of the enlightenment. I feel that he doesn't really succeed in either. There may have been an increase in the number of people who aren't sure what they believe - but believe it verys strongly, but this book doesn't analyse such personal thoughts - its much more about politics. I would say that in this sphere there has always been a lot of Mumbo-Jumbo, and that current politics is more rational than that of much of the 20^th century.

I still think that the book is worth reading though. It may not be particularly deep, but it has plenty to amuse you, particularly if you like to see cultural icons brought down to size. It also helps to give you a healthy degree of scepticism, to guard against the nonsense that can be served up by the media.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 336 pages
ISBN: 158648348X
Salesrank: 574384
Weight:0.88 lbs

Published: 2005 PublicAffairs

Amazon price $11.21

Marketplace:New from $3.04:Used from $0.09

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 368 pages
ISBN: 0007140975
Salesrank: 26008
Weight:0.57 lbs

Published: 2004 Harper Perennial

Amazon price £5.46

Marketplace:New from £0.47:Used from £0.01

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 336 pages
ISBN: 158648348X
Salesrank: 29216
Weight:0.88 lbs

Published: 2005 PublicAffairs

Amazon price CDN$ 13.14

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 8.30:Used from CDN$ 3.78

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
A big bestseller in the UK and right on about the U.S.: Francis Wheen's delightful "assault on all things irrational, inexplicable, dumb-headed and phony" (The Financial Times) What characterizes our era? Cults, quacks, gurus, irrational panics, moral confusion and an epidemic of mumbo-jumbo, that's what. In How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World Francis Wheen brilliantly laments the extraordinary rise of superstition, relativism and emotional hysteria. From Middle Eastern fundamentalism to the rise of lotteries, astrology to mysticism, poststructuralism to the Third Way, Wheen shows that there has been a pervasive erosion of Enlightenment values, which have been displaced by nonsense. And no country has a more vivid parade of the bogus and bizarre than the one founded to embody Enlightenment values: the U.S.A. In turn comic, indignant, outraged and just plain baffled by the idiocy of it all, How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World is a masterful depiction of the absurdity of our times and a plea that we might just think a little more and believe a little less.

Product Description

A big bestseller in the UK and right on about the U.S.: Francis Wheen's delightful "assault on all things irrational, inexplicable, dumb-headed and phony" (The Financial Times)

What characterizes our era? Cults, quacks, gurus, irrational panics, moral confusion and an epidemic of mumbo-jumbo, that's what. In How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World Francis Wheen brilliantly laments the extraordinary rise of superstition, relativism and emotional hysteria. From Middle Eastern fundamentalism to the rise of lotteries, astrology to mysticism, poststructuralism to the Third Way, Wheen shows that there has been a pervasive erosion of Enlightenment values, which have been displaced by nonsense. And no country has a more vivid parade of the bogus and bizarre than the one founded to embody Enlightenment values: the U.S.A. In turn comic, indignant, outraged and just plain baffled by the idiocy of it all, How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World is a masterful depiction of the absurdity of our times and a plea that we might just think a little more and believe a little less.

You should have read this book in 1986 when it was relevant **
Some funny parts but the events are really old. Thatcher? I was like 2 years old. Its hard to get outraged about a few offhanded comments she made.

You should have read this book in 1986 when it was relevant **

Some funny parts but the events are really old. Thatcher? I was like 2 years old. Its hard to get outraged about a few offhanded comments she made.

Disappointed. I so wanted to enjoy this book. *
I rarely abandon books. Especially books that I eagerly anticipate and cannot wait for the first spare moments to crack and read. I am 55% through it as I type this, and I would almost rather hang myself than even see its cover in my periphery. As other reviewers have mentioned, it is VERY full of itself and seems to think that pomposity substitutes just fine for satire. I can usually live with that in my reading, but additionally the points he tries to make are riddled with tangents, diluted by bias (and I do not mean bias for skepticism, I mean bias against individuals) and rife with the sort of word choices that remind me of a third grader hauling out the thesaurus to make her book report sound "smarter". Whereas a readable book report might include "After breakfast, John went for a walk." becomes in the third grader's edit "Upon completion of the morning's ritual consumption, John proceeded forward in which to perambulate pleasurably." 45% to go. Perhaps I should consult my astrological signs, get a tea reading, have some idiot bang on my back, and then pray for guidance about whether to continue.

Disappointed. I so wanted to enjoy this book. *

I rarely abandon books. Especially books that I eagerly anticipate and cannot wait for the first spare moments to crack and read. I am 55% through it as I type this, and I would almost rather hang myself than even see its cover in my periphery. As other reviewers have mentioned, it is VERY full of itself and seems to think that pomposity substitutes just fine for satire. I can usually live with that in my reading, but additionally the points he tries to make are riddled with tangents, diluted by bias (and I do not mean bias for skepticism, I mean bias against individuals) and rife with the sort of word choices that remind me of a third grader hauling out the thesaurus to make her book report sound "smarter". Whereas a readable book report might include "After breakfast, John went for a walk." becomes in the third grader's edit "Upon completion of the morning's ritual consumption, John proceeded forward in which to perambulate pleasurably."

45% to go. Perhaps I should consult my astrological signs, get a tea reading, have some idiot bang on my back, and then pray for guidance about whether to continue.

Credo quia absurdum (Tertullian) *****
In these sarcastic, but also angry, comments Francis Wheen denounces the actual assault on reason as a menace to civilization and defends staunchly the progressive ideas of the Enlightenment against those who argue that `ignorance is bliss'. Voodoo economics The slogan of the supply-siders, `make the well-to-do prosperous and it will leak down through those below' was a hoax in order to cut taxes for the rich. Scarcely anything trickled down. Some found even a solution for the squaring of the circle: cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. Liberalization would do wonders, but the S & L industry generated a loss of $1.4 trillion to be covered by the government (the taxpayer). `Free markets' was the cry of the day, but not for the media and certainly not for defense spending programs. Businesses didn't make products anymore, but deals (Enron). US international policies The US intervention in the Middle East provoked further setbacks in the cause of secularism and democracy. In the name of national sovereignty, the US government didn't sign international treaties on land mines, global warming or an international criminal court. A. Blair, S, Huntington, R. Murdoch, T.L. Friedman, post-modernism As a Labour PM, A. Blair adopted all the measures proposed by M. Thatcher for privatizations or lower taxes for the rich. He even defended the teaching of creationism in British schools. There is no clash of civilizations, as S. Huntington writes, but clashes within civilizations for reasons of hunger, lust for power, religious zeal or economic desperation. The staunch defender of liberalism, R. Murdoch, kowtowed shamelessly to China's autocrats in order to clinch commercial deals. For T.L. Friedman, the 1.3 billion human beings who subsist on less than one dollar a day are not important. Those who own billions of dollars can trample over entire continents without a care for social dislocation, economic insecurity and environmental devastation. For him, `the hidden hand of the market needs a hidden fist, called US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps'. As F. Wheen remarks, `people ought to understand that they are being pulverized for their own good.' The post-modernist apostles believe that `facts are a chimera'. Francis Wheen derides astrology (in the White House), the UFO scares, the com(motion) after the death of Princess Diana and the management, get-rich and self-help book industry (`The only way to get rich from a get-rich book is to write one', says Brother Ty.) This most necessary book is a must read for all those who want to understand the world we live in. As Charles Mackay already wrote in the 19th century, `people go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.'

Credo quia absurdum (Tertullian) *****

In these sarcastic, but also angry, comments Francis Wheen denounces the actual assault on reason as a menace to civilization and defends staunchly the progressive ideas of the Enlightenment against those who argue that `ignorance is bliss'.

Voodoo economics
The slogan of the supply-siders, `make the well-to-do prosperous and it will leak down through those below' was a hoax in order to cut taxes for the rich. Scarcely anything trickled down.
Some found even a solution for the squaring of the circle: cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget.
Liberalization would do wonders, but the S & L industry generated a loss of $1.4 trillion to be covered by the government (the taxpayer).
`Free markets' was the cry of the day, but not for the media and certainly not for defense spending programs.
Businesses didn't make products anymore, but deals (Enron).

US international policies
The US intervention in the Middle East provoked further setbacks in the cause of secularism and democracy.
In the name of national sovereignty, the US government didn't sign international treaties on land mines, global warming or an international criminal court.

A. Blair, S, Huntington, R. Murdoch, T.L. Friedman, post-modernism
As a Labour PM, A. Blair adopted all the measures proposed by M. Thatcher for privatizations or lower taxes for the rich. He even defended the teaching of creationism in British schools.
There is no clash of civilizations, as S. Huntington writes, but clashes within civilizations for reasons of hunger, lust for power, religious zeal or economic desperation.
The staunch defender of liberalism, R. Murdoch, kowtowed shamelessly to China's autocrats in order to clinch commercial deals.
For T.L. Friedman, the 1.3 billion human beings who subsist on less than one dollar a day are not important. Those who own billions of dollars can trample over entire continents without a care for social dislocation, economic insecurity and environmental devastation. For him, `the hidden hand of the market needs a hidden fist, called US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps'. As F. Wheen remarks, `people ought to understand that they are being pulverized for their own good.'
The post-modernist apostles believe that `facts are a chimera'.

Francis Wheen derides astrology (in the White House), the UFO scares, the com(motion) after the death of Princess Diana and the management, get-rich and self-help book industry (`The only way to get rich from a get-rich book is to write one', says Brother Ty.)

This most necessary book is a must read for all those who want to understand the world we live in. As Charles Mackay already wrote in the 19th century, `people go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.'

Self-satisfied rant masquerades as the enlightened voice of reason **
Francis Wheen is that curiously uncomfortable sort of liberal leftie: the sort who, possibly because it's part of the party line, agrees we are best served by a tolerant and pluralistic society, but in the same breath declares with startling certitude (if not good reason) in favour of hard-edged enlightenment values (in particular the primacy of science and logic over other modes of discourse), and who argues without apparent irony that the world would be better off without "mumbo jumbo" which, seeing as it encompasses not just astrologers, faith-healers, priests, and people who believe literally in science fiction, but also supply-side economists, Chomskyites, neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and post-modernists, appears to defy all categorisation other than "Things Francis Doesn't Like". You can either take or leave his particular gripes: For example, it strikes me as a little arch to say the least for a devotee of Karl Marx to cast stones at other economists' glasshouses, and while one might not agree with Thomas (or Milton) Friedman's libertarian capitalism, it's difficult to see how it qualifies as "mumbo jumbo". The pinch point with his argument is postmodernism, for it is the only philosophy which justifies the appeal to tolerance and pluralism he makes. As is customary a some relativistic straw-men are wheeled out and ridiculed (the Sokal Hoax makes yet another appearance as the sole evidence for the prosecution), but it doesn't alter the fact that tolerance and pluralism under Wheen's regime would surely be nothing more than the indulgence of the preternaturally dim: If there really is a Single Right Way To Do It, any temptation to stray from that path, however well-meaning, would be at best a wasteful distraction from the timely solution of the eternal verities. That is, Wheen ought to say there should be very little tolerance at all. But that wouldn't be very liberal: if Francis Wheen were serious about his programme (or at any rate consistent about it), he ought to be something more of an autocrat than he actually professes to be. The postmodern view, on the other hand, is that a discourse need not be certified enlightenment-compliant for it to have value - value being, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. We all behold things differently, and thank heavens for that. What Wheen asks us to accept is the measure of beauty beheld by his eye. With respect, it really isn't all that beguiling. In sum, what this book really doesn't do is what it says on the tin. It doesn't ever set out what it means by "mumbo jumbo" much less how, when, or in what way it "conquered the world" (I suppose Wheen thinks we have exited a golden age of some sort; I didn't notice anyone turning out the lights or closing any door). All this really adds up to is a Dawkins-like moan. If you fancy a grumpy old man blowing hard (and in places entertainingly, I grant you) against all the things he thinks are rubbish in the world, you'll find some value here. If you want a more thoughtful entry than that, look elsewhere. Olly Buxton

Self-satisfied rant masquerades as the enlightened voice of reason **

Francis Wheen is that curiously uncomfortable sort of liberal leftie: the sort who, possibly because it's part of the party line, agrees we are best served by a tolerant and pluralistic society, but in the same breath declares with startling certitude (if not good reason) in favour of hard-edged enlightenment values (in particular the primacy of science and logic over other modes of discourse), and who argues without apparent irony that the world would be better off without "mumbo jumbo" which, seeing as it encompasses not just astrologers, faith-healers, priests, and people who believe literally in science fiction, but also supply-side economists, Chomskyites, neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and post-modernists, appears to defy all categorisation other than "Things Francis Doesn't Like".

You can either take or leave his particular gripes: For example, it strikes me as a little arch to say the least for a devotee of Karl Marx to cast stones at other economists' glasshouses, and while one might not agree with Thomas (or Milton) Friedman's libertarian capitalism, it's difficult to see how it qualifies as "mumbo jumbo".

The pinch point with his argument is postmodernism, for it is the only philosophy which justifies the appeal to tolerance and pluralism he makes. As is customary a some relativistic straw-men are wheeled out and ridiculed (the Sokal Hoax makes yet another appearance as the sole evidence for the prosecution), but it doesn't alter the fact that tolerance and pluralism under Wheen's regime would surely be nothing more than the indulgence of the preternaturally dim: If there really is a Single Right Way To Do It, any temptation to stray from that path, however well-meaning, would be at best a wasteful distraction from the timely solution of the eternal verities. That is, Wheen ought to say there should be very little tolerance at all. But that wouldn't be very liberal: if Francis Wheen were serious about his programme (or at any rate consistent about it), he ought to be something more of an autocrat than he actually professes to be.

The postmodern view, on the other hand, is that a discourse need not be certified enlightenment-compliant for it to have value - value being, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. We all behold things differently, and thank heavens for that. What Wheen asks us to accept is the measure of beauty beheld by *his* eye. With respect, it really isn't all that beguiling.

In sum, what this book really doesn't do is what it says on the tin. It doesn't ever set out what it means by "mumbo jumbo" much less how, when, or in what way it "conquered the world" (I suppose Wheen thinks we have exited a golden age of some sort; I didn't notice anyone turning out the lights or closing any door). All this really adds up to is a Dawkins-like moan. If you fancy a grumpy old man blowing hard (and in places entertainingly, I grant you) against all the things he thinks are rubbish in the world, you'll find some value here. If you want a more thoughtful entry than that, look elsewhere.

Olly Buxton

I wish I liked it better, but it was impossible to do so... **
Man, how disappointed I was with this book. The title was very attractive. I am one of those taken by surprise by how "mumbo-jumbo conquered the world", denying a lot of the advances made by science. Reason is losing, and losing badly... So, I went for this book thinking it would be a case of "preaching to the choir" and that, naturally, I would enjoy it. My mistake. And why? Because the book has one "simple" flaw: it's badly written. It's badly organized. It's almost a mumbo-jumbo about mumbo-jambo... The author change subjects at will, often without introduction from one topic to another. The writing style seems like some angry and disgusted fellow spiting his views to his friends in a pub. The examples quoted to support his views are random and generic. I don't recommend this book, even if by default I, for the most part, agree with its ideas.

I wish I liked it better, but it was impossible to do so... **

Man, how disappointed I was with this book. The title was very attractive. I am one of those taken by surprise by how "mumbo-jumbo conquered the world", denying a lot of the advances made by science. Reason is losing, and losing badly...

So, I went for this book thinking it would be a case of "preaching to the choir" and that, naturally, I would enjoy it. My mistake. And why? Because the book has one "simple" flaw: it's badly written. It's badly organized. It's almost a mumbo-jumbo about mumbo-jambo...

The author change subjects at will, often without introduction from one topic to another. The writing style seems like some angry and disgusted fellow spiting his views to his friends in a pub. The examples quoted to support his views are random and generic.

I don't recommend this book, even if by default I, for the most part, agree with its ideas.

Just more conventionalised attacks on supposedly evil opponents *
Wheen wrote for Private Eye; he probably reads better when anonymous - this book isn't very impressive, starting with the title - he clearly doesn't even know who 'Mumbo Jumbo' was supposed to be. The whole thing is somewhat in the style of the Eye. He's a friend of Christopher Hitchen; one thing people of this sort have in common is no scientific knowledge of any sort - and I'd include statistical assessment. There are irritatingly stupid chapter headings, a strange mixture of important stuff and trivial, revealing nil judgement: 1 THE VOODOO REVOLUTION/ 2 OLD MATERIAL, NEW BOTTLES/ 3 IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT/ 4 THE DEMOLITION MERCHANTS OF REALITY/ 5 THE CATASTROPHISTS illustrate. Many reviewers here pointed out the over-emphasis on things like astrology and homeopathy and spiritualism, though I don't think any of them have pointed out that, in comparison with frauds, wars, financial extraction of money, and so on, their net economic effect is microscopic. They have the same problem as Randi, who has no purchase at all on serious issues such as 9/11 and NASA. Come to think of it, Wheen never criticises Judaism, which has beliefs far more absurd than Christianity and Islam and probably Scientology. There's a lot of play made about monopolistic publishing - if you add up the total number of tenth-rate books like this one, perhaps you'd have an accurate measure of the number of independent commissioning editors out there.

Just more conventionalised attacks on supposedly evil opponents *

Wheen wrote for Private Eye; he probably reads better when anonymous - this book isn't very impressive, starting with the title - he clearly doesn't even know who 'Mumbo Jumbo' was supposed to be. The whole thing is somewhat in the style of the Eye. He's a friend of Christopher Hitchen; one thing people of this sort have in common is no scientific knowledge of any sort - and I'd include statistical assessment. There are irritatingly stupid chapter headings, a strange mixture of important stuff and trivial, revealing nil judgement: 1 THE VOODOO REVOLUTION/ 2 OLD MATERIAL, NEW BOTTLES/ 3 IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT/ 4 THE DEMOLITION MERCHANTS OF REALITY/ 5 THE CATASTROPHISTS illustrate. Many reviewers here pointed out the over-emphasis on things like astrology and homeopathy and spiritualism, though I don't think any of them have pointed out that, in comparison with frauds, wars, financial extraction of money, and so on, their net economic effect is microscopic. They have the same problem as Randi, who has no purchase at all on serious issues such as 9/11 and NASA. Come to think of it, Wheen never criticises Judaism, which has beliefs far more absurd than Christianity and Islam and probably Scientology.

There's a lot of play made about monopolistic publishing - if you add up the total number of tenth-rate books like this one, perhaps you'd have an accurate measure of the number of independent commissioning editors out there.

Moron rule *****
I thought his a wonderful book, and entirely apt in our era of populist, trite, stupid 'democracy'.

Moron rule *****

I thought his a wonderful book, and entirely apt in our era of populist, trite, stupid 'democracy'.

A much better book than its title suggests *****
The title and the unhelpful "hilarious" quote from Paxman on the cover suggests this is all laugh a line, "news quiz" level of frippery. Well it ain't. It's a fierce and cogent defence of enlightenment values and should be mandatory reading for this dim-witted age. To be fair to Paxman - it is also hilarious, it's just that's not the point of this splendid work.

A much better book than its title suggests *****

The title and the unhelpful "hilarious" quote from Paxman on the cover suggests this is all laugh a line, "news quiz" level of frippery.

Well it ain't. It's a fierce and cogent defence of enlightenment values and should be mandatory reading for this dim-witted age.

To be fair to Paxman - it is also hilarious, it's just that's not the point of this splendid work.

One and a half cheers, or maybe two ***
Francis Wheen's light-footed skewering of humbug of all kinds, and his hearty championship of reason, science, liberty and equality, is hugely enjoyable - until he gets started on whatever the reader's own sacred cow may be, and make no mistake, we all have one. When an author attacks free-market globalisers, leftie multiculturalists, deconstructionists, traditional Christians, New Age mystics and fans of Princess Diana all in the same book, he's bound to offend almost everyone - apart from sacrificing thematic coherence. One of my own sticking points came when he stated that the Christian doctrine of original sin was just as offensive as the notion that disabled people are paying off the bad karma they collected in previous incarnations. Come on, old chap, original sin is merely a mythic way of describing a phenomenon accepted by all evolutionary biologists, the Selfish Gene. And it applies to everyone, rather than being an excuse not to care for the unfortunate. Suddenly you start noticing that F.W. has prejudices of his own, is very quick to write off everyone he disagrees with as an idiot, moron or charlatan, and instead of a fearless voice for truth, he starts to look like a smart-arse sawing off the branch he is sitting on. Like medieval ascetics aghast at the average man's inability to control his sexual urges, rationalists of Wheen's ilk seem to think humankind can exist on the bread-and-water of science alone. They don't care much for storytelling, art, music, all that sort of thing, and the difficulty of carrying on any sort of culture in the absence of a shared repertoire of myth and symbol moves them very little. They will never admit that they are partly responsible for creating the wild and woolly world of mumbo-jumbo that they so deplore. Rationalists like Wheen, Dawkins and their predecessors back to the Enlightenment first drive the daisy-cutter of `scientific objectivity' through the lush primeval forest of myth, religion and taboo, and then they express shocked surprise that the re-growth - astrology, UFOlogy, quackery of all kinds - is so rank and weedy. As Horace said, you can drive Nature out with a pitchfork, but she keeps coming back. And to believe in Reason takes a lot of faith, too.

One and a half cheers, or maybe two ***

Francis Wheen's light-footed skewering of humbug of all kinds, and his hearty championship of reason, science, liberty and equality, is hugely enjoyable - until he gets started on whatever the reader's own sacred cow may be, and make no mistake, we all have one. When an author attacks free-market globalisers, leftie multiculturalists, deconstructionists, traditional Christians, New Age mystics and fans of Princess Diana all in the same book, he's bound to offend almost everyone - apart from sacrificing thematic coherence. One of my own sticking points came when he stated that the Christian doctrine of original sin was just as offensive as the notion that disabled people are paying off the bad karma they collected in previous incarnations. Come on, old chap, original sin is merely a mythic way of describing a phenomenon accepted by all evolutionary biologists, the Selfish Gene. And it applies to everyone, rather than being an excuse not to care for the unfortunate. Suddenly you start noticing that F.W. has prejudices of his own, is very quick to write off everyone he disagrees with as an idiot, moron or charlatan, and instead of a fearless voice for truth, he starts to look like a smart-arse sawing off the branch he is sitting on.

Like medieval ascetics aghast at the average man's inability to control his sexual urges, rationalists of Wheen's ilk seem to think humankind can exist on the bread-and-water of science alone. They don't care much for storytelling, art, music, all that sort of thing, and the difficulty of carrying on any sort of culture in the absence of a shared repertoire of myth and symbol moves them very little. They will never admit that they are partly responsible for creating the wild and woolly world of mumbo-jumbo that they so deplore. Rationalists like Wheen, Dawkins and their predecessors back to the Enlightenment first drive the daisy-cutter of `scientific objectivity' through the lush primeval forest of myth, religion and taboo, and then they express shocked surprise that the re-growth - astrology, UFOlogy, quackery of all kinds - is so rank and weedy. As Horace said, you can drive Nature out with a pitchfork, but she keeps coming back. And to believe in Reason takes a lot of faith, too.

Mumbo Jumbo *****
Having read this myself I bought a copy for my daughter and son-in-law hoping to 'educate' them. Very good on exposing the daft things we believe in.

Mumbo Jumbo *****

Having read this myself I bought a copy for my daughter and son-in-law hoping to 'educate' them. Very good on exposing the daft things we believe in.

No Proof in IDIOT PROOF ***
The dust jacket depicts cartoonish figures of Princess Diana, Deepak Chopra, Noam Chomsky, Hillary Clinton, Pat Buchanan, and Ayatollah Khomeini, accompanied by carnival-print phrases like "Deluded Celebrities" and "Media Morons." The back cover offers a testimonial that IDIOT PROOF is a companion to Michael Moore's STUPID WHITE MEN. Whatever this book is, it decidedly does not belong with anything by Michael Moore. Furthermore, the contents of this book are rather substantially different than the expose-style cover would suggest. Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and Francis Fukuyama, and Alan Sokal occupy far more of this book's content than Hillary Clinton and Pat Buchanan. The latter have clearly and misleadingly been pasted onto the cover to attract American buyers. Then again, how many Americans would buy this book if its cover was plastered with head shots of Diana, Tony, and Margaret surrounded by Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida, Noam Chomsky, Tom Friedman, and Jacques Lacan? IDIOT PROOF is an extraordinarily difficult book to categorize, in part because it feels like it was written by an ADHD sufferer. The book skips wildly from philosophy to economics to pop culture to globalization to Marxism to Islamic fundamentalism to the dot.com bubble to the sins of left-wing liberalism and the IMF to Enron. In the end, it is difficult to know who the idiots are and what their delusions are, since the only common thread seems to arise out of a specious argument that Margaret Thatcher led a revolt against the rational principles of the Age of Enlightment. So Americans can apparently blame Dame Maggie for everything from irrational exuberance to Paris Hilton, from aromatherapy to UFO sightings at Area 51. Following an opening discourse on Immanuel Kant, Chapter 1 traces the new Victorianism of Margaret Thatcher's ministry. The next chapter deals with the inflated importance of gurus from Tom Peters, Stephen Covey and Deepak Chopra to Anthony Robbins, John Gray, and Jeffrey Robbins, a subject that seems consistent with the book's title and cover depictions. The next chapter jumps to a bizarre discourse on Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington, followed by a chapter on structuralism, deconstructionism and the post-modernist critics from Derrida to Lacan to Stanley Fish, wrapped up with a riff on creationism in Kansas. Chapter 5 gets seemingly back on point with an amusing discussion of popular delusions and quackery, ranging from Nostradamus to homeopathy to UFO's and the Book of Revelation. Much of the remainder of the book wanders through religious fundamentalism, the military-industrial complex, Al Gore's tobacco farm, Lady Diana worship,Thomas Friedman, the East India Company, the World Bank, Enron, Islamic fundamentalism, and finally to Pol Pot and Noam Chomsky. The wrap-up says it all -- those who reject rationalism and the Enlightenment live in darkness and threaten to take the rest of us with them. Individual chapters in IDIOT PROOF are generally interesting in themselves, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts. In the end, this book lacks a strong enough connecting thread to tie together such wildly disparate topics and their odd juxtapositions. It hardly seems necessary to use 287 pages to make the point that rationalism is more rational than religious fundamentalism and New Age mumbo-jumbo, and in the end, there appears to little notion as to what to do about it. The author offers little hope, and the dust jacket lamely suggests that "we might just think a little more and believe a little less." Yeah, I guess that pretty well solves the problem, doesn't it? IDIOT PROOF is less than its cover suggests, but also more than the puffery displayed in the cover design. Buy this book for its depth of thought on some complex intellectual topics and its deft puncturing of cults, spiritualism, self-help, and a host of left-wing shibboleths. But don't buy this book as a trashing of pop culture, and definitely don't buy it as a companion piece to Michael Moore.

No Proof in IDIOT PROOF ***

The dust jacket depicts cartoonish figures of Princess Diana, Deepak Chopra, Noam Chomsky, Hillary Clinton, Pat Buchanan, and Ayatollah Khomeini, accompanied by carnival-print phrases like "Deluded Celebrities" and "Media Morons." The back cover offers a testimonial that IDIOT PROOF is a companion to Michael Moore's STUPID WHITE MEN. Whatever this book is, it decidedly does not belong with anything by Michael Moore. Furthermore, the contents of this book are rather substantially different than the expose-style cover would suggest. Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and Francis Fukuyama, and Alan Sokal occupy far more of this book's content than Hillary Clinton and Pat Buchanan. The latter have clearly and misleadingly been pasted onto the cover to attract American buyers. Then again, how many Americans would buy this book if its cover was plastered with head shots of Diana, Tony, and Margaret surrounded by Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida, Noam Chomsky, Tom Friedman, and Jacques Lacan?

IDIOT PROOF is an extraordinarily difficult book to categorize, in part because it feels like it was written by an ADHD sufferer. The book skips wildly from philosophy to economics to pop culture to globalization to Marxism to Islamic fundamentalism to the dot.com bubble to the sins of left-wing liberalism and the IMF to Enron. In the end, it is difficult to know who the idiots are and what their delusions are, since the only common thread seems to arise out of a specious argument that Margaret Thatcher led a revolt against the rational principles of the Age of Enlightment. So Americans can apparently blame Dame Maggie for everything from irrational exuberance to Paris Hilton, from aromatherapy to UFO sightings at Area 51.

Following an opening discourse on Immanuel Kant, Chapter 1 traces the new Victorianism of Margaret Thatcher's ministry. The next chapter deals with the inflated importance of gurus from Tom Peters, Stephen Covey and Deepak Chopra to Anthony Robbins, John Gray, and Jeffrey Robbins, a subject that seems consistent with the book's title and cover depictions.

The next chapter jumps to a bizarre discourse on Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington, followed by a chapter on structuralism, deconstructionism and the post-modernist critics from Derrida to Lacan to Stanley Fish, wrapped up with a riff on creationism in Kansas.

Chapter 5 gets seemingly back on point with an amusing discussion of popular delusions and quackery, ranging from Nostradamus to homeopathy to UFO's and the Book of Revelation. Much of the remainder of the book wanders through religious fundamentalism, the military-industrial complex, Al Gore's tobacco farm, Lady Diana worship,Thomas Friedman, the East India Company, the World Bank, Enron, Islamic fundamentalism, and finally to Pol Pot and Noam Chomsky. The wrap-up says it all -- those who reject rationalism and the Enlightenment live in darkness and threaten to take the rest of us with them.

Individual chapters in IDIOT PROOF are generally interesting in themselves, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts. In the end, this book lacks a strong enough connecting thread to tie together such wildly disparate topics and their odd juxtapositions. It hardly seems necessary to use 287 pages to make the point that rationalism is more rational than religious fundamentalism and New Age mumbo-jumbo, and in the end, there appears to little notion as to what to do about it. The author offers little hope, and the dust jacket lamely suggests that "we might just think a little more and believe a little less." Yeah, I guess that pretty well solves the problem, doesn't it?

IDIOT PROOF is less than its cover suggests, but also more than the puffery displayed in the cover design. Buy this book for its depth of thought on some complex intellectual topics and its deft puncturing of cults, spiritualism, self-help, and a host of left-wing shibboleths. But don't buy this book as a trashing of pop culture, and definitely don't buy it as a companion piece to Michael Moore.

More whining all the time from frannie *
I look forward to the day when Francis Wheen will use his considerable inteligence and talents towards saying something instead of just being, you know, clever.

More whining all the time from frannie *

I look forward to the day when Francis Wheen will use his considerable inteligence and talents towards saying something instead of just being, you know, clever.

The return of enlightenment ****
As a society have we completely lost touch with the reason and enlightenment that brought us out of the dark ages and into modern science? If so have we become so confused that we are headed back to a time when reason is thrown away in favor of what can only be called superstitious belief? Author Francis Wheen examines our world today and how cults, superstition, and the desire to want to believe have caused a veritable epidemic of foolishness often passing as science. In his book "Idiot Proof" he takes on several people who are veritable icons of contemporary society - people like Nancy Reagan, Deepak Chopra, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and many others. In addition to people he takes on various subjects like UFOs, crystals, psychics, and astrology. This is a book about how people are lead like sheep to the slaughter merrily bleating along the way totally unaware of their folly. While you may not agree with all the assessments, they are logically founded and well argued. While I enjoyed the book and Mr. Wheen's commentary, I don't personally agree with everything in the book. Still, I recognize the importance of having people like Mr. Wheen occasionally point out the contrasting side of a belief. The way we grow and refine our beliefs requires that we keep an open mind and examine all sides. Mr. Wheen serves this purpose of presenting the opposing viewpoint very well. Then again, if we have learned anything from history it is that science can lead us down the wrong path just as easily as any superstition. There was a time when doctors lost their jobs and were subject to ridicule if they believed in germs. The whole concept was nonsense and against logic and current knowledge. With plenty of notes and cross-references at the end of the book, "Idiot Proof" is a recommended read and sure to be enlightening to everyone on at least a few fronts.

The return of enlightenment ****

As a society have we completely lost touch with the reason and enlightenment that brought us out of the dark ages and into modern science? If so have we become so confused that we are headed back to a time when reason is thrown away in favor of what can only be called superstitious belief? Author Francis Wheen examines our world today and how cults, superstition, and the desire to want to believe have caused a veritable epidemic of foolishness often passing as science. In his book "Idiot Proof" he takes on several people who are veritable icons of contemporary society - people like Nancy Reagan, Deepak Chopra, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and many others. In addition to people he takes on various subjects like UFOs, crystals, psychics, and astrology. This is a book about how people are lead like sheep to the slaughter merrily bleating along the way totally unaware of their folly. While you may not agree with all the assessments, they are logically founded and well argued.

While I enjoyed the book and Mr. Wheen's commentary, I don't personally agree with everything in the book. Still, I recognize the importance of having people like Mr. Wheen occasionally point out the contrasting side of a belief. The way we grow and refine our beliefs requires that we keep an open mind and examine all sides. Mr. Wheen serves this purpose of presenting the opposing viewpoint very well. Then again, if we have learned anything from history it is that science can lead us down the wrong path just as easily as any superstition. There was a time when doctors lost their jobs and were subject to ridicule if they believed in germs. The whole concept was nonsense and against logic and current knowledge.

With plenty of notes and cross-references at the end of the book, "Idiot Proof" is a recommended read and sure to be enlightening to everyone on at least a few fronts.

In Search of Proof and Logical Conclusions Amid Delusions ****
We are indeed fortunate that we have rational minds that can help us differentiate between coincidence and cause and effect. Yet even the most rational person probably has some superstitions, some beliefs that are not scientifically proven and some gut instincts that are just plain wrong. Harkening back to the ideals of the Enlightenment, Mr. Francis Wheen points out the nonrational follies of the powerful, the rich, the media and the ordinary person. As he suggests in the book, this will be humorous . . . when it's someone else's folly . . . and not so humorous when it is your own. Those who do not care for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mrs. John Major and Deepak Chopra will probably find this book the most amusing. They come in for frequent ribbing about their "spiritual" beliefs. Now that free market economics are so popular, many people will feel gored by the analyses in the book describing how free market economics aren't the solution to all world problems. Mr. Wheen seems to be most outraged when such bad decisions are allowed to harm others (a sentiment I'm sure you share) . . . and when people make money from peddling their unproven solutions (a sentiment that you may or may not agree with). Why, by the way, did I rate the book at 4 stars rather than 5? It's pretty simple. Mr. Wheen didn't do his homework in many areas. For example, he condemns all forms of alternative medicine . . . even though some obviously work well. For instance, in China acupuncture is used in many forms of painful surgery. Although no one has done (to my knowledge) a double-blind test costing $100+ million to prove this, I think we can safely assume that acupuncture can reduce pain. You can even do the experiment yourself for very little money by getting a treatment. As another example, Mr. Wheen doesn't seem to like any management theory that sells a lot of books (including those by Dr. Stephen Covey and Tom Peters), yet many people will tell you they have learned important lessons from those books. I know that I have. What he seems to miss is that many of these books contain case histories of successes that we can model ourselves after. That's helpful information. I agree that it would be better if business book authors did research on which to base their findings . . . but most will not do that. They will simply repackage other resources. At the end of the book, if you are like me, you will have had quite a few good laughs . . . and a few sobering thoughts that will serve you well in being more rational.

In Search of Proof and Logical Conclusions Amid Delusions ****

We are indeed fortunate that we have rational minds that can help us differentiate between coincidence and cause and effect. Yet even the most rational person probably has some superstitions, some beliefs that are not scientifically proven and some gut instincts that are just plain wrong.

Harkening back to the ideals of the Enlightenment, Mr. Francis Wheen points out the nonrational follies of the powerful, the rich, the media and the ordinary person. As he suggests in the book, this will be humorous . . . when it's someone else's folly . . . and not so humorous when it is your own.

Those who do not care for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mrs. John Major and Deepak Chopra will probably find this book the most amusing. They come in for frequent ribbing about their "spiritual" beliefs.

Now that free market economics are so popular, many people will feel gored by the analyses in the book describing how free market economics aren't the solution to all world problems.

Mr. Wheen seems to be most outraged when such bad decisions are allowed to harm others (a sentiment I'm sure you share) . . . and when people make money from peddling their unproven solutions (a sentiment that you may or may not agree with).

Why, by the way, did I rate the book at 4 stars rather than 5? It's pretty simple. Mr. Wheen didn't do his homework in many areas. For example, he condemns all forms of alternative medicine . . . even though some obviously work well. For instance, in China acupuncture is used in many forms of painful surgery. Although no one has done (to my knowledge) a double-blind test costing $100+ million to prove this, I think we can safely assume that acupuncture can reduce pain. You can even do the experiment yourself for very little money by getting a treatment.

As another example, Mr. Wheen doesn't seem to like any management theory that sells a lot of books (including those by Dr. Stephen Covey and Tom Peters), yet many people will tell you they have learned important lessons from those books. I know that I have. What he seems to miss is that many of these books contain case histories of successes that we can model ourselves after. That's helpful information. I agree that it would be better if business book authors did research on which to base their findings . . . but most will not do that. They will simply repackage other resources.

At the end of the book, if you are like me, you will have had quite a few good laughs . . . and a few sobering thoughts that will serve you well in being more rational.