What do you think?
Rate this book
The Empire and the Five Kings: America's Abdication and the Fate of the World
One of the West’s leading intellectuals offers a provocative look at America’s withdrawal from world leadership and the rising powers who seek to fill the vacuum left behind.
The United States was once the hope of the world, a beacon of freedom and the defender of liberal democracy. Nations and peoples on all continents looked to America to stand up for the values that created the Western worldand to oppose autocracy and repression. Even when America did not live up to its ideals, it still recognized their importance, at home and abroad.
But as Bernard-Henri Lévy lays bare in this powerful and disturbing analysis of the world today, America is retreating from its traditional leadership role, and in its place have come five ambitious powers, former empires eager to assert their primacy and influence. Lévy shows how these five—Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and Sunni radical Islamism—are taking steps to undermine the liberal values that have been a hallmark of Western civilization.
The Empire and the Five Kings is a cri de coeur that draws upon lessons from history and the eternal touchstones of human culture to reveal the stakes facing the West as America retreats from its leadership role, a process that did not begin with Donald Trump's presidency and is not likely to end with him. The crisis is one whose roots can be found as far back as antiquity and whose resolution will require the West to find a new way forward if its principles and values are to survive.
The United States was once the hope of the world, a beacon of freedom and the defender of liberal democracy. Nations and peoples on all continents looked to America to stand up for the values that created the Western worldand to oppose autocracy and repression. Even when America did not live up to its ideals, it still recognized their importance, at home and abroad.
But as Bernard-Henri Lévy lays bare in this powerful and disturbing analysis of the world today, America is retreating from its traditional leadership role, and in its place have come five ambitious powers, former empires eager to assert their primacy and influence. Lévy shows how these five—Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and Sunni radical Islamism—are taking steps to undermine the liberal values that have been a hallmark of Western civilization.
The Empire and the Five Kings is a cri de coeur that draws upon lessons from history and the eternal touchstones of human culture to reveal the stakes facing the West as America retreats from its leadership role, a process that did not begin with Donald Trump's presidency and is not likely to end with him. The crisis is one whose roots can be found as far back as antiquity and whose resolution will require the West to find a new way forward if its principles and values are to survive.
261 pages, Hardcover
First published February 12, 2019
271 people are currently reading
1104 people want to read
About the author
Bernard-Henri Lévy
107 books240 followersBernard-Henri Lévy is a philosopher, activist, filmmaker, and author of more than thirty books including The Genius of Judaism, American Vertigo, Barbarism with a Human Face, and Who Killed Daniel Pearl? His writing has appeared extensively in publications throughout Europe and the United States. His documentaries include Peshmerga, The Battle of Mosul, The Oath of Tobruk, and Bosna! Lévy is cofounder of the antiracist group SOS Racisme and has served on diplomatic missions for the French government.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
February 15, 2019
Bernard is an eclectic writer who quotes freely from the Bible, the Iliad, Hannah Arendt, the Talmud, some writers you've heard of and some you've never heard before. He has also lived a charmed life, filming documentaries in war torn areas over the years while being involved in global geopolitics. A writer of his ilk should always be given a chance.
In this book, his central thesis was that as America is slowly abdicating its role on the global stage, 5 "kings" namely Putin, Erdogan, Iran's Ayatollahs, President Xi and the House of Saud ( i am guessing MBS) are filling the void and in the process trying to resurrect their old empires, the likes of USSR, Ottoman, the Chinese Empire, the Persian empire and I am not sure if the house of Saud had an earlier empire but you get the gist. The thesis has some merit. We all agree that the post WW2 structure is fraying but we do not know what comes next. Bernard provided the answer.
I agreed with him on the central outline of his ideas but his rendition left a lot to be desired. Bernard delivered his points on the sheer force of narrative. There was no data. When he got it right the chapters were a lulu, especially the opening chapters but when he got it wrong the reader got lost in his wandering thoughts trying to torture out a coherent narrative from a chapter that ended up being a litany of his biases . I particularly did not like how he was enamored by America calling it the city on the hill while showing a complete disdain of the other "kings" and their empires. This reeked of a reheating of the cold war propaganda. But Bernard is clever, earlier in the book he challenged the reader to a thought process, where he asked one to take a fair scale and put America's ills on one side and the good that America has done on the global stage on the other side and see where the scale tilts. When you do this you realise how you tilt the scale reveals more about your biases rather than an unassailable answer of America's goodness or badness, and so you allow Bernard a leeway to praise America endlessly while calling the new empires ghosts and some other demeaning names.
I will issue a qualified recommendation for this book, it has a lot of original thought but its rendition and lack of data open it up for a lot of criticism. A better take on the topic (well argued with a systematic thought process) can be found in Kagan's The Jungle Grows Back: The Case for American Power. I will advise the interested reader to read both books, may be start with Kagan's first then wash it down with this one.
In this book, his central thesis was that as America is slowly abdicating its role on the global stage, 5 "kings" namely Putin, Erdogan, Iran's Ayatollahs, President Xi and the House of Saud ( i am guessing MBS) are filling the void and in the process trying to resurrect their old empires, the likes of USSR, Ottoman, the Chinese Empire, the Persian empire and I am not sure if the house of Saud had an earlier empire but you get the gist. The thesis has some merit. We all agree that the post WW2 structure is fraying but we do not know what comes next. Bernard provided the answer.
I agreed with him on the central outline of his ideas but his rendition left a lot to be desired. Bernard delivered his points on the sheer force of narrative. There was no data. When he got it right the chapters were a lulu, especially the opening chapters but when he got it wrong the reader got lost in his wandering thoughts trying to torture out a coherent narrative from a chapter that ended up being a litany of his biases . I particularly did not like how he was enamored by America calling it the city on the hill while showing a complete disdain of the other "kings" and their empires. This reeked of a reheating of the cold war propaganda. But Bernard is clever, earlier in the book he challenged the reader to a thought process, where he asked one to take a fair scale and put America's ills on one side and the good that America has done on the global stage on the other side and see where the scale tilts. When you do this you realise how you tilt the scale reveals more about your biases rather than an unassailable answer of America's goodness or badness, and so you allow Bernard a leeway to praise America endlessly while calling the new empires ghosts and some other demeaning names.
I will issue a qualified recommendation for this book, it has a lot of original thought but its rendition and lack of data open it up for a lot of criticism. A better take on the topic (well argued with a systematic thought process) can be found in Kagan's The Jungle Grows Back: The Case for American Power. I will advise the interested reader to read both books, may be start with Kagan's first then wash it down with this one.
June 2, 2019
I was pleasantly surprised by this book. Bernard-Henri Levy (BHL) has written a book on geopolitics and the world role of America in the age of Trump. A brief spoiler - BHL does not think much of Trump. He does think a lot of America, however, warts and all, and has written an interesting extended essay to stake out his position. In a nutshell, he like it when the US exercises a global leadership role, even though the US is not fully confident and self-assured in such as role (whatever that means). The US is an empire that does not seem to want to act like an empire and ends up in its role more reluctantly than not. This moderates the potential for America as empire to really mess up the world from arrogance and overconfidence. This positive view of America is different from BHL’s views on particular presidents, especially both Obama and Trump.
The key point of the argument, for me, is that the withdrawal of the US from world leadership opens the door for action by second tier dynamic (and non-European) state actors. He names five: Turkey, Iran, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. While these are not all equal in size or impact, all of these have a history of world leadership of some sort but all are long past their prime and emphasize the toxic and destructive sides of empire rather than the more constructive sides that further liberty, culture, and individual prosperity. So BHL is not a supporter of US foreign policy, especially recently, but he is reacting to the excesses against poor and marginalized people that have seemed to multiply as the US gives up the initiative and recedes from leadership. He sees the net effect of such trends as destructive.
What do I like about this? BHL has a clear perspective that focuses on a historical record and is positively oriented and supportive of humanity. He is not an historicist and does not see meaning in the development of events as indicating the unfolding of any specific historical mission. Leaders and states can act and should act in response to present conditions and needs and not be handicapped by references to some imagined overly positive past. Philosophically, this is a good place to be in heavy discussions of meaning in history and BHL is well aware of the excesses of historicism in the past two centuries. He seems to focus on empire for the productive order that it can bring to international systems and commercial relations. More fractionalized international arenas do not bode well for peace and prosperity.
What don’t I like about this? The style is a bit overbearing. BHL is quite a thinker and has built a career of linking thought and action in the pursuit of key values. In case you are unsure of this, BHL will fill in the details for you in the course of the book. I get it - you are a genius and have been around the block and have seen just about everything!
Personally, I would prefer if the argument was persuasive on its own terms and I did not need to learn much about the author to appreciate the case he/she was making.
The intellectual style is also very continental - with more than a little Hegel. This is an acquired taste but is not overly excessive here. Be prepared for more than the average number of syllables.
BHL is not big on specifics for recommendations, but very few books on foreign policy in the past few years have been very specific. Given Trumpworld, this seems par for the course.
Overall, this is a welcome addition to Trump literature on foreign policy and worth the effort.
The key point of the argument, for me, is that the withdrawal of the US from world leadership opens the door for action by second tier dynamic (and non-European) state actors. He names five: Turkey, Iran, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. While these are not all equal in size or impact, all of these have a history of world leadership of some sort but all are long past their prime and emphasize the toxic and destructive sides of empire rather than the more constructive sides that further liberty, culture, and individual prosperity. So BHL is not a supporter of US foreign policy, especially recently, but he is reacting to the excesses against poor and marginalized people that have seemed to multiply as the US gives up the initiative and recedes from leadership. He sees the net effect of such trends as destructive.
What do I like about this? BHL has a clear perspective that focuses on a historical record and is positively oriented and supportive of humanity. He is not an historicist and does not see meaning in the development of events as indicating the unfolding of any specific historical mission. Leaders and states can act and should act in response to present conditions and needs and not be handicapped by references to some imagined overly positive past. Philosophically, this is a good place to be in heavy discussions of meaning in history and BHL is well aware of the excesses of historicism in the past two centuries. He seems to focus on empire for the productive order that it can bring to international systems and commercial relations. More fractionalized international arenas do not bode well for peace and prosperity.
What don’t I like about this? The style is a bit overbearing. BHL is quite a thinker and has built a career of linking thought and action in the pursuit of key values. In case you are unsure of this, BHL will fill in the details for you in the course of the book. I get it - you are a genius and have been around the block and have seen just about everything!
Personally, I would prefer if the argument was persuasive on its own terms and I did not need to learn much about the author to appreciate the case he/she was making.
The intellectual style is also very continental - with more than a little Hegel. This is an acquired taste but is not overly excessive here. Be prepared for more than the average number of syllables.
BHL is not big on specifics for recommendations, but very few books on foreign policy in the past few years have been very specific. Given Trumpworld, this seems par for the course.
Overall, this is a welcome addition to Trump literature on foreign policy and worth the effort.
March 3, 2019
This book could have easily been compacted to the length of an article in the Atlantic. Instead, we are presented with hundreds of pages of the author trying to immodestly impress upon the reader that the author is, indeed, the most interesting man in the world. Although the book was occasionally entertaining and I agree with its basic premise that the Western world and way of life is preferable to the options being presented by ancient kingdoms resurgent, the execution - driven primarily by narrative and literary or philosophical digressions - left much to be desired. Interwoven data would have done much to bolster many of the author's claims and given the book a tone more persuasive than polemical.
February 18, 2019
BHL is one of my favorite active practising intellectuals and philosophers.
His latest is a great reminder for those of us who believe in American Exceptionalism and a great reminder that others in the world who are at risk do as well.
America's abandoning the international field leaves it to the revival of the international nihilists of the five kingdoms (Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran). Where life, liberty, and humanity are at risk.
Life, liberty, and fraternity!
His latest is a great reminder for those of us who believe in American Exceptionalism and a great reminder that others in the world who are at risk do as well.
America's abandoning the international field leaves it to the revival of the international nihilists of the five kingdoms (Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran). Where life, liberty, and humanity are at risk.
Life, liberty, and fraternity!
February 5, 2022
It's going on three years since this book was published and overall, it holds up pretty well. In general, he is a fan of the USA being the world's dominant power and policeman over against the "five kings" - Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the Sunni Muslim world exemplified by Saudi Arabia. He was no fan of President Donald Trump, who was president when he wrote this book. Would be interesting to get his take on President Joe Biden, particular on his withdrawal from Afghanistan and the current Russia-Ukraine crisis. His sympathies are generally with the world's underdogs. In this book he wrote a lot about the Kurds of Iraq and Syria. His great fear seems to be that America's temptation is to withdraw from world affairs, to be isolationist as it was in the 1920's, leaving the "Five Kings" to try to revive their empires.
February 22, 2019
It is a very weak book with extremely shaky arguments! Poor references and data to say the least!
Our "philosopher" BH. Lévy said in the first chapter of this book: "....the Kurds put their faith in democracy and law, in equality of women and men even on the field of battle". I am not sure if we can call the feudal rule of the Barazani family as a "democracy" and I should remind the readers here that female genital mutilation in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq under the rule of his friend Barazani is very common!
He also added in the same Chapter referring to the West : "Kurdistan’s historic allies, its sister democracies...." ....'They uttered not a word as Kurdish houses in Kirkuk were gassed and
ransacked, women raped, people tortured.".
Lévy here is accusing the Iraqi government of gassing the Kurds and raping women during the Battle of Kirkuk!! I 've never heard about this before reading his masterpiece! Truly that's an astonishing claim! What proof does Lévy have about the use of Chemical weapons during the Battle of Kirkuk?
Throughout the book, he keeps blaming the West of betraying the Kurds and his "democratic" feudal friend Barazani (ruler of Erbil) but he did not tell us that the Barzani's rival in Kurdistan, the Talabani family (the Kurdish rulers of Sulaymaniyah) supported the Iraqi forces in Kirkuk!
Our "philosopher" BH. Lévy said in the first chapter of this book: "....the Kurds put their faith in democracy and law, in equality of women and men even on the field of battle". I am not sure if we can call the feudal rule of the Barazani family as a "democracy" and I should remind the readers here that female genital mutilation in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq under the rule of his friend Barazani is very common!
He also added in the same Chapter referring to the West : "Kurdistan’s historic allies, its sister democracies...." ....'They uttered not a word as Kurdish houses in Kirkuk were gassed and
ransacked, women raped, people tortured.".
Lévy here is accusing the Iraqi government of gassing the Kurds and raping women during the Battle of Kirkuk!! I 've never heard about this before reading his masterpiece! Truly that's an astonishing claim! What proof does Lévy have about the use of Chemical weapons during the Battle of Kirkuk?
Throughout the book, he keeps blaming the West of betraying the Kurds and his "democratic" feudal friend Barazani (ruler of Erbil) but he did not tell us that the Barzani's rival in Kurdistan, the Talabani family (the Kurdish rulers of Sulaymaniyah) supported the Iraqi forces in Kirkuk!
February 3, 2020
Picked up on impulse from the new book shelf at the library. So far it's a great deal of inflated rhetoric from M. Levy, who quickly lets us know he's a Big Deal as a European intellectual. While I agree with (what I think are) his main points, his extravagant rhetoric is truly distracting. On hiatus, and likely headed for an early DNF.
The review I like here is by Todd, https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Excerpt: "This book could have easily been compacted to the length of an article in the Atlantic. Instead, we are presented with hundreds of pages of the author trying to immodestly impress upon the reader that the author is, indeed, the most interesting man in the world."
The review I like here is by Todd, https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Excerpt: "This book could have easily been compacted to the length of an article in the Atlantic. Instead, we are presented with hundreds of pages of the author trying to immodestly impress upon the reader that the author is, indeed, the most interesting man in the world."
September 18, 2019
Bernard-Henri Levy is a committed advocate for the downtrodden of the world and I don't really disagree with most of what he says; I think. His convoluted prose and obscure references, however, sometimes make it difficult to discern exactly what he is talking about. Even Levy seems to understand this as he often repeats his points in somewhat less opaque language in order to give the reader a fighting chance to determine his meaning.
In Levy's interpretation of contemporary international relations, the defenders of The Empire (unlike in Star Wars) are the good guys. However the self-absorption of the current leaders of The Empire and their indifference (if not outright hostility) toward justice, democracy, culture, and the other values that made The Empire great, have provided an opportunity for the Five Kings (the bad guys) to pursue authoritarian agendas and trample on the rights of women, minorities, and stateless ethnic groups such as the Kurds. Western Civilization has come up with a lot of good ideas over the past three millennia, but also some bad ones. The author laments that the Five Kings have ignored a lot of the good ideas and embraced some of the worst ones. He encourages fellow believers in all that is noble in western values to stand firm against the authoritarian politics of the Five Kings.
If all this sounds like warmed-over Western Imperialism to you, it also did to Levy who goes to great lengths to affirm his solidarity with the downtrodden of the world and emphasizes that his grievances are only with the misguided leaders of authoritarian countries and not with the general population, many of whom are likely to be the victims. I don't have any problems with the author's intentions or rationales (with the possible exception of his suggestion that the ayatollahs are Nazis because they refuse to change the name of their country back to Persia), but his literary style is too overwrought for my taste.
In Levy's interpretation of contemporary international relations, the defenders of The Empire (unlike in Star Wars) are the good guys. However the self-absorption of the current leaders of The Empire and their indifference (if not outright hostility) toward justice, democracy, culture, and the other values that made The Empire great, have provided an opportunity for the Five Kings (the bad guys) to pursue authoritarian agendas and trample on the rights of women, minorities, and stateless ethnic groups such as the Kurds. Western Civilization has come up with a lot of good ideas over the past three millennia, but also some bad ones. The author laments that the Five Kings have ignored a lot of the good ideas and embraced some of the worst ones. He encourages fellow believers in all that is noble in western values to stand firm against the authoritarian politics of the Five Kings.
If all this sounds like warmed-over Western Imperialism to you, it also did to Levy who goes to great lengths to affirm his solidarity with the downtrodden of the world and emphasizes that his grievances are only with the misguided leaders of authoritarian countries and not with the general population, many of whom are likely to be the victims. I don't have any problems with the author's intentions or rationales (with the possible exception of his suggestion that the ayatollahs are Nazis because they refuse to change the name of their country back to Persia), but his literary style is too overwrought for my taste.
July 27, 2019
I really enjoyed this book. It's an interesting insight into the state of the world made by an astute observer of America.
Levy's basic premise is that the United States is sleeping while five, totalitarian kings (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, China and Iran are running roughshod, gobbling up the world (or at least the Middle East, and sowing the seeds of future conflicts. He is particularly outraged by the fates of Syrian Kurds, who led the ground war against Isis, only to be abandoned by the American commander-in-chief and left to the infinitesimal mercies of three of the "kings:" Turkey, Iran and the House of Saud.
Levy provides some interesting insights on American culture and its place in the world. He points out that 'Americans will never build anything permanent,' which I disagreed with at first, but then took a look at my own shape-shifting town and realized the truth. Americans don't speak with the wisdom of centuries (sad) nor do we expect our ideas and works to endure for centuries (not a bad way to be, IMO). We just live life as we wish to here, without ever closing the door to moving there at some point in the future.
In general, I felt that Levy--like most European observers--overestimates the desire of voting Americans to step in and fix the world's problems militarily. There is still a strong military culture here, but a lessening desire to do the bidding of almost every country but tiny, little Israel. To me, let someone else stop these kings in their tracks. Why not France or India for a change?
Levy's basic premise is that the United States is sleeping while five, totalitarian kings (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, China and Iran are running roughshod, gobbling up the world (or at least the Middle East, and sowing the seeds of future conflicts. He is particularly outraged by the fates of Syrian Kurds, who led the ground war against Isis, only to be abandoned by the American commander-in-chief and left to the infinitesimal mercies of three of the "kings:" Turkey, Iran and the House of Saud.
Levy provides some interesting insights on American culture and its place in the world. He points out that 'Americans will never build anything permanent,' which I disagreed with at first, but then took a look at my own shape-shifting town and realized the truth. Americans don't speak with the wisdom of centuries (sad) nor do we expect our ideas and works to endure for centuries (not a bad way to be, IMO). We just live life as we wish to here, without ever closing the door to moving there at some point in the future.
In general, I felt that Levy--like most European observers--overestimates the desire of voting Americans to step in and fix the world's problems militarily. There is still a strong military culture here, but a lessening desire to do the bidding of almost every country but tiny, little Israel. To me, let someone else stop these kings in their tracks. Why not France or India for a change?
August 31, 2019
A thoughtful meditation on the abdication of global power by the United States and the revanchism of 'five kings' - Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and the Sunni states - to fill the vacuum created. Full of ten dollar words and Gallic disdain, Levy writes beautiful prose with a superior yet mournful point of view. Some sharp turns of phrase and numerous allusions to philosophy, history, and mythology make it worth a quick read.
April 1, 2019
Interesting and contrarian arguments about the direction of the 21st century. For a short book, it meanders at times, and isn’t always easy to follow. Worth a read and thinking about the author’s argument about the trajectory of the west and the seemingly rising challengers.
January 31, 2025
BH Lévy má čtivý, eklektický styl, který mobilizuje historické události i biblické příběhy, s pomocí kterých vytváří sebejistý narativ o “osudu světa.” Svědomitě také uznává, že tento narativ má jisté mezery, načež se je snaží trochu rozpačitě překlenout (př. uznává, že koloniální historie USA také existuje, ale nelze ji, naopak co ostatním ano, USA vyčítat, jelikož byl “však od té doby přetřásána” dost na to, aby byla odpuštěna. Otrokářství už je minulostí, protože byl zvolen Barack Obama. Oba tyto háčky rozebírá v jednom odstavci na straně 37.)
Vkládá velké naděje do USA, která je jako jediná dnešní Říše morálně svrchovaná a náleží jí tedy nejen právo, ale i povinnost svůj vliv rozšiřovat mimo kontinent - argument pro americkou zahraniční politiku komplimentující mimo jiného vojenskou operaci v Afghánistánu, vítěznou intervenci do obou světových válek v Evropě či osvobození Kosova. Mrzí ho, že Ameriku vidí na toto poslaní rezignovat, například když odmítla pomoct Kurdům vzdorujícím irácké armádě. V jeho filozofii vidím nezlomnou teleologickou tendenci poměřovat podle (deklarovaného) záměru spíše než cíle, ke kterému aktér nakonec dojde.
Poznamenává, že “demokratické vlády se vůči válce stavějí se sebevražednou slabostí” (s.16), což je možné ilustrovat na případu anexe Krymu.
S autorem jsem se po celou dobu čtení neshodovala, a i když prezentoval zajímavé, plodné myšlenky, přijde mi, že způsob, kterým si dnešní dění vykládá, je zcestný. Musím mu dát za pravdu, že některých procesů a mocenských vzorců si všímá dobře, a není jediný.
Důležitým motivem (byť mi přišlo, že nezamýšleným) je také Izrael a jak k němu autor vztahuje své židovství. Úpad Amerického smyslu pro svobodu a spravedlnost vidí v “mocném levicovém antisemitismu, který se soustředí na bojkotování Izraele” (s.68). Zjevný rozpor v tvrzeních, který se (nejen) tímto argumentem vytváří, lze jen těžko překonat.
Centrální myšlenka hlásá, že Západní Říše, myšleno USA, popřípadě západní Evropa, na jejíž kulturní a politickou tradici Amerika, ať si to přiznává nebo ne, navazuje, oslabuje. Tím dává prostor Pěti Králům, Saúdské Arábii, Rusku, Íránu, Číně a Turecku. Tato “království,” byť ve svém kulturním a mocenském rozměru slabší než Říše, se příležitosti chytají a snaží se navázat na svou slavnou minulost. Snahy o rozšíření vlivu těchto Království jsou podle autora jen špinavou kopií “čistého” imperialismu Ameriky. Kdyby se jim to podařilo, Lévy varuje před nastolením nového, násilného světa. Nemůžu se ubránit pocitu, že je to argument veskrze xenofobní, i když samozřejmě nelze obhajovat rétoriku ani panování oněch “Králů” jako je Erdogan nebo Putin.
Naprosté zklamání z argumentace pro poselství stranou, knihu jsem dočetla, protože skutečně otevírá některá zajímavá a důležitá témata. Fascinující mi přišel rozbor jisté fetišizace imperiální minulosti, “přehrávaný archaismus,” “podlehnutí morbidní a kanibalské, pohřební a sebedestruktivní paměti” (s.222). Dále pasáž o denacifikaci arabského světa, která vlastně nikdy neproběhla, ilustrovaná na přejmenování Persie na Írán (byť se jedná o historický název, znamená “země Árijců” a takové přejmenování v roce 1935 není náhoda).
Závěr: Dobře napsaná, podnětná kniha, jejíž hlavní argument pokulhává. Jistě existuje mnoho jiných alternativních zdrojů, které ke stejným tématům přistupují konstruktivněji, což této knize její filozoficky historický formát neumožňuje, či to ani nebyl záměr.
Vkládá velké naděje do USA, která je jako jediná dnešní Říše morálně svrchovaná a náleží jí tedy nejen právo, ale i povinnost svůj vliv rozšiřovat mimo kontinent - argument pro americkou zahraniční politiku komplimentující mimo jiného vojenskou operaci v Afghánistánu, vítěznou intervenci do obou světových válek v Evropě či osvobození Kosova. Mrzí ho, že Ameriku vidí na toto poslaní rezignovat, například když odmítla pomoct Kurdům vzdorujícím irácké armádě. V jeho filozofii vidím nezlomnou teleologickou tendenci poměřovat podle (deklarovaného) záměru spíše než cíle, ke kterému aktér nakonec dojde.
Poznamenává, že “demokratické vlády se vůči válce stavějí se sebevražednou slabostí” (s.16), což je možné ilustrovat na případu anexe Krymu.
S autorem jsem se po celou dobu čtení neshodovala, a i když prezentoval zajímavé, plodné myšlenky, přijde mi, že způsob, kterým si dnešní dění vykládá, je zcestný. Musím mu dát za pravdu, že některých procesů a mocenských vzorců si všímá dobře, a není jediný.
Důležitým motivem (byť mi přišlo, že nezamýšleným) je také Izrael a jak k němu autor vztahuje své židovství. Úpad Amerického smyslu pro svobodu a spravedlnost vidí v “mocném levicovém antisemitismu, který se soustředí na bojkotování Izraele” (s.68). Zjevný rozpor v tvrzeních, který se (nejen) tímto argumentem vytváří, lze jen těžko překonat.
Centrální myšlenka hlásá, že Západní Říše, myšleno USA, popřípadě západní Evropa, na jejíž kulturní a politickou tradici Amerika, ať si to přiznává nebo ne, navazuje, oslabuje. Tím dává prostor Pěti Králům, Saúdské Arábii, Rusku, Íránu, Číně a Turecku. Tato “království,” byť ve svém kulturním a mocenském rozměru slabší než Říše, se příležitosti chytají a snaží se navázat na svou slavnou minulost. Snahy o rozšíření vlivu těchto Království jsou podle autora jen špinavou kopií “čistého” imperialismu Ameriky. Kdyby se jim to podařilo, Lévy varuje před nastolením nového, násilného světa. Nemůžu se ubránit pocitu, že je to argument veskrze xenofobní, i když samozřejmě nelze obhajovat rétoriku ani panování oněch “Králů” jako je Erdogan nebo Putin.
Naprosté zklamání z argumentace pro poselství stranou, knihu jsem dočetla, protože skutečně otevírá některá zajímavá a důležitá témata. Fascinující mi přišel rozbor jisté fetišizace imperiální minulosti, “přehrávaný archaismus,” “podlehnutí morbidní a kanibalské, pohřební a sebedestruktivní paměti” (s.222). Dále pasáž o denacifikaci arabského světa, která vlastně nikdy neproběhla, ilustrovaná na přejmenování Persie na Írán (byť se jedná o historický název, znamená “země Árijců” a takové přejmenování v roce 1935 není náhoda).
Závěr: Dobře napsaná, podnětná kniha, jejíž hlavní argument pokulhává. Jistě existuje mnoho jiných alternativních zdrojů, které ke stejným tématům přistupují konstruktivněji, což této knize její filozoficky historický formát neumožňuje, či to ani nebyl záměr.
April 10, 2019
I read this book shortly after its US publication in 2019. The translator was Steven B. Kennedy. The book came out in France in 2018.
I first became aware of Bernard-Henri Lévy when he toured the US in Tocqueville's footsteps. His book about that, AMERICAN VERTIGO, was quite prominent when it was published in the US in 2006. Lévy went to the same places Alexis de Tocqueville had traveled in the early 19th-century and so AMERICAN VERTIGO hearkened back to Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. Lévy's understanding of America is pretty acute.
His current book is most rewarding when it is most abstract. This is not to say that it lacks immediacy. A book written by a witness to America's betrayal of the Kurds; a book which begins and ends with the plight of the Kurds, is specific about place and time. The book's subtitle, "America's Abdication and the Fate of the World," is not hard to grasp. A liberal American such as I am has no difficulty seeing, and agreeing with, Lévy's point: The United States, tired, and rather oblivious of its own history as a defender of the downtrodden and a champion of liberty, has allowed itself to be distracted in an era in which narcissism is rewarded and voyeurism pervasive.
It is whenever Bernard-Henri Lévy describes the circumstances of the Kurdish struggle that his book becomes hard to navigate. Readers who have read about Eastern Europe, the Near East and the Middle East will probably understand what is happening, but I found I had to rely on the sense I've had for many years that the Kurds are brave underdogs and that the world has never shown them mercy. I needed no persuading. But there are readers who need a concrete explanation of the situation. I don't feel that that is given here.
Lévy is on more solid ground when he describes the ambitions of former empires whose memories of past glory are banal fantasies often literally transformed into theme parks. Lévy makes a strong case that each of what he calls the Five Kingdoms once made great contributions to civilization. The Ottoman Empire was glorious: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not. China in the age of Confucius was grand: The China of genetic engineering and makeshift landing strips in the middle of the ocean is not. Persia, when Rumi was versifying, was awesome: Iran, whose very name was adopted in 1935 in a nod to the Nazis ("Iran" meaning "Aryan"), is not. Russia, which gave us Gogol, for example, and, at its darkest moment, one of the bravest writers who ever lived, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, is without ideals today. Sunni radical Islam, manifested in the atrocities of the terrorist network ISIS, has forgotten the Islamic avoidance of visual depictions of living beings and opted to make and distribute videos of living beings causing other living beings to cease to be living beings. The main thrust of the book is that the US, allowing manifest destiny to become the spreading of a culture of watchers being watched, is withdrawing from physical participation in the world's struggles.
The Five Kings are stepping into the space the US has abandoned.
Lévy offers some optimism, saying that a nation doing nothing is preferable to five aggressive countries (if amorphous, as in the case of the country that is "Sunni radical Islam") seeking to return to empire; but he rather slyly ends with the idea that, inasmuch as Rome (also called Edom) crops up in different places around the world whenever it SEEMS to vanish, could well return as a revitalized Europe. That is, if the US really is becoming solipsistic, Europe can take up the mantle again.
Bernard-Henri Lévy points out that he himself has been a player in several world dramas. Moscow, for example, resents his activities enough to have announced that he is not to be allowed to visit. I'm not at all sure what he has done, but I know he's done it. But, readers who want proof of what he's done to shape events won't find it here. THE EMPIRE AND THE FIVE KINGS should have stated the plight of the Kurds more clearly, and a detailed description of what the author has done on the world stage would have been helpful. He quotes the great historians of almost every epoch. He can be one.
I first became aware of Bernard-Henri Lévy when he toured the US in Tocqueville's footsteps. His book about that, AMERICAN VERTIGO, was quite prominent when it was published in the US in 2006. Lévy went to the same places Alexis de Tocqueville had traveled in the early 19th-century and so AMERICAN VERTIGO hearkened back to Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. Lévy's understanding of America is pretty acute.
His current book is most rewarding when it is most abstract. This is not to say that it lacks immediacy. A book written by a witness to America's betrayal of the Kurds; a book which begins and ends with the plight of the Kurds, is specific about place and time. The book's subtitle, "America's Abdication and the Fate of the World," is not hard to grasp. A liberal American such as I am has no difficulty seeing, and agreeing with, Lévy's point: The United States, tired, and rather oblivious of its own history as a defender of the downtrodden and a champion of liberty, has allowed itself to be distracted in an era in which narcissism is rewarded and voyeurism pervasive.
It is whenever Bernard-Henri Lévy describes the circumstances of the Kurdish struggle that his book becomes hard to navigate. Readers who have read about Eastern Europe, the Near East and the Middle East will probably understand what is happening, but I found I had to rely on the sense I've had for many years that the Kurds are brave underdogs and that the world has never shown them mercy. I needed no persuading. But there are readers who need a concrete explanation of the situation. I don't feel that that is given here.
Lévy is on more solid ground when he describes the ambitions of former empires whose memories of past glory are banal fantasies often literally transformed into theme parks. Lévy makes a strong case that each of what he calls the Five Kingdoms once made great contributions to civilization. The Ottoman Empire was glorious: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not. China in the age of Confucius was grand: The China of genetic engineering and makeshift landing strips in the middle of the ocean is not. Persia, when Rumi was versifying, was awesome: Iran, whose very name was adopted in 1935 in a nod to the Nazis ("Iran" meaning "Aryan"), is not. Russia, which gave us Gogol, for example, and, at its darkest moment, one of the bravest writers who ever lived, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, is without ideals today. Sunni radical Islam, manifested in the atrocities of the terrorist network ISIS, has forgotten the Islamic avoidance of visual depictions of living beings and opted to make and distribute videos of living beings causing other living beings to cease to be living beings. The main thrust of the book is that the US, allowing manifest destiny to become the spreading of a culture of watchers being watched, is withdrawing from physical participation in the world's struggles.
The Five Kings are stepping into the space the US has abandoned.
Lévy offers some optimism, saying that a nation doing nothing is preferable to five aggressive countries (if amorphous, as in the case of the country that is "Sunni radical Islam") seeking to return to empire; but he rather slyly ends with the idea that, inasmuch as Rome (also called Edom) crops up in different places around the world whenever it SEEMS to vanish, could well return as a revitalized Europe. That is, if the US really is becoming solipsistic, Europe can take up the mantle again.
Bernard-Henri Lévy points out that he himself has been a player in several world dramas. Moscow, for example, resents his activities enough to have announced that he is not to be allowed to visit. I'm not at all sure what he has done, but I know he's done it. But, readers who want proof of what he's done to shape events won't find it here. THE EMPIRE AND THE FIVE KINGS should have stated the plight of the Kurds more clearly, and a detailed description of what the author has done on the world stage would have been helpful. He quotes the great historians of almost every epoch. He can be one.
October 13, 2024
Bernard-Henri Levy is surely one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, and certainly most relevant among the contemporary philosophers that France has produced. Unlike many of his colleagues who ply their trade while safely ensconced in their academic ivory towers, BHL has been out there on the front lines - literally. Witnessing the American acquiescence to the betrayal of the Kurds by the rag tag and corrupt Iraqi army in Kirkuk, and by the Turks in Afrin. Levy realized that he was witnessing the early stages of a new and very dark epoch. Post Cold War America ("The Empire") is ceding, or rather forfeiting its leadership position as the bastion of liberal democracy in favor of five ascending powers, namely Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and radical Islam ("The Five Kings") that are positioning to fill the power vacuum by default and to usher in a new and very dangerous world order. Those of us who grew up enjoying the fruits of western liberalism and democracy, as well as those who look to the west for their inspiration, and perhaps their salvation should take note.
Regrettably, BHL cannot resist the temptation to cloth his thesis in historical and philosophical references and parallels, many that are quite obscure and opaque. I know, he is a French intellectual and so this is par for the course. I get it. Still, it is at the detriment of his important thesis. Please, Messieur Levy, more matter with less art would make your work more accessible to an American audience that needs to hear, and comprehend your vital message.
UPDATE: Oct 14 2019: With Trump's insame and impetuous betrayal of the Kurds in NE Syria, we are witnessing the terrifying first fruits of the American abrogation or responsibility and leadership that BHL warned us about. The consequences will prove to be very brutal.
Regrettably, BHL cannot resist the temptation to cloth his thesis in historical and philosophical references and parallels, many that are quite obscure and opaque. I know, he is a French intellectual and so this is par for the course. I get it. Still, it is at the detriment of his important thesis. Please, Messieur Levy, more matter with less art would make your work more accessible to an American audience that needs to hear, and comprehend your vital message.
UPDATE: Oct 14 2019: With Trump's insame and impetuous betrayal of the Kurds in NE Syria, we are witnessing the terrifying first fruits of the American abrogation or responsibility and leadership that BHL warned us about. The consequences will prove to be very brutal.
February 20, 2022
would that i could, not only would i give this book zero stars but i would put BHL on trial in front of a Libyan peoples tribunal.
one of the worst, most worm-brained books i’ve ever suffered through. Levy loves western empire - and empire loves him! but he completely refuses to engage with the practical implications of empire, or of his beloved “humanitarian intervention”.
the reality is this: if you live in the west and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, it is propped up by perpetrating unimaginable violence, physical and economic, on the developing world and any and all who dare oppose democratic representation and free market capital. we’ve done 9/11 everyday for the past few decades basically to ensure that americans can still get their treats with the upmost convenience. Levy wants what every good neocon wants: to eat his treats and forget the rest.
I’ll renegotiate my position on re-education camps once we’ve dealt with the likes of BHL
one of the worst, most worm-brained books i’ve ever suffered through. Levy loves western empire - and empire loves him! but he completely refuses to engage with the practical implications of empire, or of his beloved “humanitarian intervention”.
the reality is this: if you live in the west and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, it is propped up by perpetrating unimaginable violence, physical and economic, on the developing world and any and all who dare oppose democratic representation and free market capital. we’ve done 9/11 everyday for the past few decades basically to ensure that americans can still get their treats with the upmost convenience. Levy wants what every good neocon wants: to eat his treats and forget the rest.
I’ll renegotiate my position on re-education camps once we’ve dealt with the likes of BHL
March 25, 2019
The title of this book gives you the premise of the failure of America to lead the world, instead allowing a vacuum to let the other power players to fill the void. This book was a slight challenge for me, as a great deal of it was a reflection of Greek philosophers, Roman poets, German philosophy, and other cerebral figures in history. But there is the emphasis that America needs to set it's ship straight and regather it's moral and values. Bernard-Henri Lévy gives a disturbing analysis.
The United States was once the hope of the world, a beacon of freedom and the defender of liberal democracy. Nations and peoples on all continents looked to America to stand up for the values that created the Western world, and to oppose autocracy and repression. Even when America did not live up to its ideals, it still recognized their importance, at home and abroad.
The United States was once the hope of the world, a beacon of freedom and the defender of liberal democracy. Nations and peoples on all continents looked to America to stand up for the values that created the Western world, and to oppose autocracy and repression. Even when America did not live up to its ideals, it still recognized their importance, at home and abroad.
March 1, 2019
Excellent read on the state of the world today from someone who does not mince his words. Unfortunately, the forces of anti-democracy and obscurantism are numerous, and therefore do not expect more praise than criticism on this masterwork. Hope this awakens some consciousness on the values and foundations of democratic principles: freedoms of expression not action which is anarchy - and equal women's rights.
April 28, 2020
If there is a coherent thought in this book, it is buried in stream of consciousness.
The author says nothing, states no facts, provides no logical arguments - indeed, doesn't even seem to have a point. The only thing that comes across quite clearly is that he is disappointed in America and it has something to do with Kurdistan not being a world power.
Not recommended for anyone for any purpose.
The author says nothing, states no facts, provides no logical arguments - indeed, doesn't even seem to have a point. The only thing that comes across quite clearly is that he is disappointed in America and it has something to do with Kurdistan not being a world power.
Not recommended for anyone for any purpose.
May 9, 2019
This is an excellent and timely book from one of my favorite current philosophers and intellectuals. He makes some good and salient points about the state of the world today, and the state of Western Culture. I always enjoy reading him for his wide knowledge and excellent choice of references.
February 26, 2019
Excellent book on the state we reached today.
March 8, 2020
To Empire or not to Empire, an interesting discussion on USA international presence on the World Stage.
March 25, 2022
Levy is a pompous ass filled with exotic information that is worth pondering.
It’s too bad that so much great material has been left veiled by the drudgery of this man’s style. He breaks out into self-congratulatory pseudo-poetic dross that ruins many a good passage.
And then unbelievable fantasies like the “hymns of freedom [he] heard on the battlefields of the Libyan revolution.” Please spare me.
Something about these Left-leaning intellectual types: they get so many things right, but seem to be possessed by chiliastic delusions that, to fulfill, will require everyone’s labor but their own (in this case putting the blame on America for not “saving” the free world from these Five Kings).
I think I’ve learned that it is dangerous for intellectuals to comment on current events. We should all shut up and listen and watch and then wait years before we try to give the correct analysis of a time or an event. Case in point, the man’s ravings about Trump almost had me laughing out loud. These people become temporarily insane when they hear the name “Donald.”
Leave it to a Frenchman to write a book like this. Much beauty cloaked by arrogant style. Generally, just not very well thought-out. It felt like he scribbled this on the back of a napkin while flying home from one of his romantic little adventures making a documentary that no one ever watched. You lived such a goddam charmed life, Levy. I’m truly jealous.
It’s too bad that so much great material has been left veiled by the drudgery of this man’s style. He breaks out into self-congratulatory pseudo-poetic dross that ruins many a good passage.
And then unbelievable fantasies like the “hymns of freedom [he] heard on the battlefields of the Libyan revolution.” Please spare me.
Something about these Left-leaning intellectual types: they get so many things right, but seem to be possessed by chiliastic delusions that, to fulfill, will require everyone’s labor but their own (in this case putting the blame on America for not “saving” the free world from these Five Kings).
I think I’ve learned that it is dangerous for intellectuals to comment on current events. We should all shut up and listen and watch and then wait years before we try to give the correct analysis of a time or an event. Case in point, the man’s ravings about Trump almost had me laughing out loud. These people become temporarily insane when they hear the name “Donald.”
Leave it to a Frenchman to write a book like this. Much beauty cloaked by arrogant style. Generally, just not very well thought-out. It felt like he scribbled this on the back of a napkin while flying home from one of his romantic little adventures making a documentary that no one ever watched. You lived such a goddam charmed life, Levy. I’m truly jealous.
February 15, 2020
The thesis of the book is encapsulated in the last paragraph of chapter 9:
"What does it mean to be a friend of freedom today? What does it mean to remember and defend the great tradition of what used to be called antifascism? It means to invert the Abrahamic approach to the war between the empire and the five kings. It means to protect the strength that was the West against the weaker parties (weaker now, but for how long?) that are China, Iran, Russia, the neo-Ottomans, and those nostalgic for the caliphate. As in the Chapters of the Fathers, a friend of freedom must pray for empire."
Indeed, for Levy, "empire" is NOT a dirty word. Levy believes that the United States is that universal ("predicate," as he calls it) empire, a proposition nation, an idea more than a geographic location, that represents the fusion of the best of European and Hebraic thought. It is currently being confronted by atavistic states (really, authoritarian minorities in those states) bent on reversing the verdict of 1945 that saw an end of fascism and the rise of the liberal international order. These states are primarily China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What all five have in common is a quasi-fascist bent, Levy avers. They have a nostalgia for their past greatness and wish to reclaim it. While the West enjoyed the "End of History," these states have fought against it.
Levy frames his thesis using the story of Abraham from the Bible and the tale of his rescue of Lot during the war between four imperial powers (which he envisions as one imperial power, Edom, or "the Empire") and five kings, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. These five kings, representing all that was sinful in the ancient Near East, were routed by the Empire, which captured Lot. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell into tar pits. Abraham, in his quest to recover Lot, aids the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In a nutshell, Levy argues that the West, today, is making the mistake of aiding the "five kings" of our own time - China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran - just as Abraham did in ancient history. Much of this aid has been through the provision of technology to these states that has allowed them to undermine the "Empire" - the United States, the trans-Atlantic world, and the international order it has established. This aiding and abetting of the enemy has largely been the work of GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple).
Levy argues that the US has been largely passive in this evolution. For one thing, it is a reluctant empire, he says. For historical reasons, America is always 'on the move' and uncertain about settling down to administer something like a world order. But it has also been unfaithful to its intellectual heritage. For one thing, like Aeneas of Troy who brought his gods to Italy and established Rome, the United States brought with it what was best from its origins in Europe (enlightenment thinking, for example). However, now the United States is turning its back on Europe, embracing an anti-European attitude (which started under Obama). The same, Levy suggests, is true of religion. While once the United States had a common religious bond with the Old World from whence it came, it has now Americanized its Christianity, further alienating from Europe.
Levy spends a lot of time looking at the agendas of the five kings as well as pointing out their weaknesses. He more or less argues for a revivification of the United States' faith in itself as a city upon a hill, a champion of liberalism, etc. He talks about the need to stand firm in the face of the aggression of the five kings. He even suggests that Europe might be the ideal candidate to fill the breach if the United States can't get its act together.
While I largely agree with Levy's thesis, share his love for Western Civilization, and possess a common fear of what a world shaped by the five kings might look like, I have some problems with this treatise. Foremost among them, Levy seems to suffer from the same blind spot so many shell-shocked liberals had, and continue to have, after Donald Trump's electoral victory in 2016 - a total lack of self-awareness and an attendant refusal to introspect . Russian meddling, James Comey's investigation into Hilary Clinton's emails - the whole nine yards - played a role in Trump's triumph. But these things only greased the wheels of a train that was already being carried on ballast composed of popular discontent with the status quo. Granted, external authoritarian forces that have always sought liberalism's demise played a role in catapulting Trump to power, nurture populist revolts, and continue to assiduously work to undermine the post-1945 world order. But Levy doesn't make any time to discuss some of the modern excesses of liberalism, or honestly examine why this has prompted the masses in Western states to incline their ears to the populists. Modern liberalism, which is now often indistinguishable from progressivism, has alienated A LOT of people without its traditional enemies having to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Polarizing agendas like transgenderism, open-borders policies, militant secularism, pushed by many members of the Western nomenklatura, the traditional stewards of liberal governance, have alienated many former liberals. It's not convincing to blame, as an example, Hungary's turn from liberalism, solely on the alleged fascist proclivities of Viktor Orban or malevolent influence emanating from Russia. People in Hungary, as in others, are aware of some of the cutting-edge progressive agendas being pushed in the heartlands of liberalism in the name of liberal "values" and are beginning to give the entire project a sober second look. The cosmopolitan Levy seems to be aloof to all this.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention, as other reviewers have, that a major problem with the book is its elaborate prose. Granted, Levy is a well-read philosopher. But he writes with such a highfalutin air that it can be off-putting in its showiness at times.
"What does it mean to be a friend of freedom today? What does it mean to remember and defend the great tradition of what used to be called antifascism? It means to invert the Abrahamic approach to the war between the empire and the five kings. It means to protect the strength that was the West against the weaker parties (weaker now, but for how long?) that are China, Iran, Russia, the neo-Ottomans, and those nostalgic for the caliphate. As in the Chapters of the Fathers, a friend of freedom must pray for empire."
Indeed, for Levy, "empire" is NOT a dirty word. Levy believes that the United States is that universal ("predicate," as he calls it) empire, a proposition nation, an idea more than a geographic location, that represents the fusion of the best of European and Hebraic thought. It is currently being confronted by atavistic states (really, authoritarian minorities in those states) bent on reversing the verdict of 1945 that saw an end of fascism and the rise of the liberal international order. These states are primarily China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What all five have in common is a quasi-fascist bent, Levy avers. They have a nostalgia for their past greatness and wish to reclaim it. While the West enjoyed the "End of History," these states have fought against it.
Levy frames his thesis using the story of Abraham from the Bible and the tale of his rescue of Lot during the war between four imperial powers (which he envisions as one imperial power, Edom, or "the Empire") and five kings, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. These five kings, representing all that was sinful in the ancient Near East, were routed by the Empire, which captured Lot. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell into tar pits. Abraham, in his quest to recover Lot, aids the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In a nutshell, Levy argues that the West, today, is making the mistake of aiding the "five kings" of our own time - China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran - just as Abraham did in ancient history. Much of this aid has been through the provision of technology to these states that has allowed them to undermine the "Empire" - the United States, the trans-Atlantic world, and the international order it has established. This aiding and abetting of the enemy has largely been the work of GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple).
Levy argues that the US has been largely passive in this evolution. For one thing, it is a reluctant empire, he says. For historical reasons, America is always 'on the move' and uncertain about settling down to administer something like a world order. But it has also been unfaithful to its intellectual heritage. For one thing, like Aeneas of Troy who brought his gods to Italy and established Rome, the United States brought with it what was best from its origins in Europe (enlightenment thinking, for example). However, now the United States is turning its back on Europe, embracing an anti-European attitude (which started under Obama). The same, Levy suggests, is true of religion. While once the United States had a common religious bond with the Old World from whence it came, it has now Americanized its Christianity, further alienating from Europe.
Levy spends a lot of time looking at the agendas of the five kings as well as pointing out their weaknesses. He more or less argues for a revivification of the United States' faith in itself as a city upon a hill, a champion of liberalism, etc. He talks about the need to stand firm in the face of the aggression of the five kings. He even suggests that Europe might be the ideal candidate to fill the breach if the United States can't get its act together.
While I largely agree with Levy's thesis, share his love for Western Civilization, and possess a common fear of what a world shaped by the five kings might look like, I have some problems with this treatise. Foremost among them, Levy seems to suffer from the same blind spot so many shell-shocked liberals had, and continue to have, after Donald Trump's electoral victory in 2016 - a total lack of self-awareness and an attendant refusal to introspect . Russian meddling, James Comey's investigation into Hilary Clinton's emails - the whole nine yards - played a role in Trump's triumph. But these things only greased the wheels of a train that was already being carried on ballast composed of popular discontent with the status quo. Granted, external authoritarian forces that have always sought liberalism's demise played a role in catapulting Trump to power, nurture populist revolts, and continue to assiduously work to undermine the post-1945 world order. But Levy doesn't make any time to discuss some of the modern excesses of liberalism, or honestly examine why this has prompted the masses in Western states to incline their ears to the populists. Modern liberalism, which is now often indistinguishable from progressivism, has alienated A LOT of people without its traditional enemies having to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Polarizing agendas like transgenderism, open-borders policies, militant secularism, pushed by many members of the Western nomenklatura, the traditional stewards of liberal governance, have alienated many former liberals. It's not convincing to blame, as an example, Hungary's turn from liberalism, solely on the alleged fascist proclivities of Viktor Orban or malevolent influence emanating from Russia. People in Hungary, as in others, are aware of some of the cutting-edge progressive agendas being pushed in the heartlands of liberalism in the name of liberal "values" and are beginning to give the entire project a sober second look. The cosmopolitan Levy seems to be aloof to all this.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention, as other reviewers have, that a major problem with the book is its elaborate prose. Granted, Levy is a well-read philosopher. But he writes with such a highfalutin air that it can be off-putting in its showiness at times.
April 24, 2025
This book is as pertinent and important in 2025 as when it was published in 2019.
July 10, 2020
Every once in a reading while I take a plunge in reading a book that I know is ‘over my head’ but will yield thoughts deeper than my comfort zone.
While this academic treatise is difficult, Lévy has walked the walk and lived in the bloodstream of his politics and opinions.
In this essay the Empire is a fast fading Trump America and five ’possible’ countries ready to step into the vacuum: China,Russia,Iran,Turkey
and a generalized Sunni impact on Arab nations; yet to be fully recognized by any of the five nations
as an existential threat to their current politics.
I am a Trump supporter for both his actions and his accomplishments and I was worried that this would be another Trump syndrome screed: not so.
Lévy makes it clear that Trump is a problem, but avoids any lashing out.
Well written, but not a book for skimming.
While this academic treatise is difficult, Lévy has walked the walk and lived in the bloodstream of his politics and opinions.
In this essay the Empire is a fast fading Trump America and five ’possible’ countries ready to step into the vacuum: China,Russia,Iran,Turkey
and a generalized Sunni impact on Arab nations; yet to be fully recognized by any of the five nations
as an existential threat to their current politics.
I am a Trump supporter for both his actions and his accomplishments and I was worried that this would be another Trump syndrome screed: not so.
Lévy makes it clear that Trump is a problem, but avoids any lashing out.
Well written, but not a book for skimming.
May 29, 2019
There has been much discussion lately, especially after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, of the receding role of Western and American influence in the world and Bernard-Henri Lévy's latest book is just one of many forthcoming treatises on this marked change in geopolitics.
As we all sort through the various books on this subject we must be diligent in assessing how the changing world dynamic is assessed by these authors. We must distinguish serious analyses from extenuated newspaper commentaries and self-serving compendiums that elevate the role of the author in the discussions of the subject matter. I place The Empire and the Five Kings in the latter category (more on that in a minute).
The author begins his book be describing his connection and love for the Kurdish people. I found this intriguing and I was excited about the direction the book was going to go in. I quickly learned, however, that the only direction that Lévy was headed toward was proving an alarmist condemnation of the attempts of Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and China to assume the throne of world leadership that the US has seemingly abandoned. For anyone who follows the news, this is not a surprise. But what Lévy provides is long-winded, winding narrative that at times loses focus of the thesis of his book. What stood out very clearly to me is how much resentment he has toward Iran. He frequently invoked Godwin's Law (labeling an opponent as a supporter of Hitler or Nazism) when describing the 1935 decision by Reza Shah to rename Persia "Iran" as the country's commitment to Aryanism and categorizing the Arab world in the 1930s and early 1940s as supporters of Nazism. Intriguing accusations. He cited some names, but it would have been great if he had footnotes or a bibliography. My interest was piqued, but I will have to read up on this topic on my own.
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the author has no love whatsoever for Recep Tayyip Erdogan) also come under his attack, but not to the extent that Iran does. Lévy's love for the Kurds might have injected a little bit more hostility in his analysis.
Ultimately, the "five kings" are bound to fail because they are trying to resuscitate the golden years of each of their previous empires. They will fail because they are merely masquerading what they truly want: power. They could not care less about their own people. Many readers, including me, would agree with this assessment.
Lévy is extremely well-read and he throws out a lot of names and references. But the number of them and their distance from relevance to the point he was making made it hard to follow what he was trying to say. He assumes that we all know the names of figures from Classical history while I knew some of them, most were unknown to me.
But what this book comes down to is that it a paean to the author. Even he seems to recognize this when he writes, "Bear with me one last time when I say that I have spent nearly as much time circling the globe as I have reading and writing." Early he seems to elevate his importance and he wants us to know this. He writes, "There are the books in which I cataloged ad nauseum the stern, bare principles of democracy and human rights and, therefore, the always-open opportunity for their application in countries seemingly exotic and far away."
There are two competing narratives in this book; one is the love the author has for the Kurds and the other is a testament to how much he has read and traveled. Readers will have to decide which one speaks to them more clearly.
As we all sort through the various books on this subject we must be diligent in assessing how the changing world dynamic is assessed by these authors. We must distinguish serious analyses from extenuated newspaper commentaries and self-serving compendiums that elevate the role of the author in the discussions of the subject matter. I place The Empire and the Five Kings in the latter category (more on that in a minute).
The author begins his book be describing his connection and love for the Kurdish people. I found this intriguing and I was excited about the direction the book was going to go in. I quickly learned, however, that the only direction that Lévy was headed toward was proving an alarmist condemnation of the attempts of Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and China to assume the throne of world leadership that the US has seemingly abandoned. For anyone who follows the news, this is not a surprise. But what Lévy provides is long-winded, winding narrative that at times loses focus of the thesis of his book. What stood out very clearly to me is how much resentment he has toward Iran. He frequently invoked Godwin's Law (labeling an opponent as a supporter of Hitler or Nazism) when describing the 1935 decision by Reza Shah to rename Persia "Iran" as the country's commitment to Aryanism and categorizing the Arab world in the 1930s and early 1940s as supporters of Nazism. Intriguing accusations. He cited some names, but it would have been great if he had footnotes or a bibliography. My interest was piqued, but I will have to read up on this topic on my own.
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the author has no love whatsoever for Recep Tayyip Erdogan) also come under his attack, but not to the extent that Iran does. Lévy's love for the Kurds might have injected a little bit more hostility in his analysis.
Ultimately, the "five kings" are bound to fail because they are trying to resuscitate the golden years of each of their previous empires. They will fail because they are merely masquerading what they truly want: power. They could not care less about their own people. Many readers, including me, would agree with this assessment.
Lévy is extremely well-read and he throws out a lot of names and references. But the number of them and their distance from relevance to the point he was making made it hard to follow what he was trying to say. He assumes that we all know the names of figures from Classical history while I knew some of them, most were unknown to me.
But what this book comes down to is that it a paean to the author. Even he seems to recognize this when he writes, "Bear with me one last time when I say that I have spent nearly as much time circling the globe as I have reading and writing." Early he seems to elevate his importance and he wants us to know this. He writes, "There are the books in which I cataloged ad nauseum the stern, bare principles of democracy and human rights and, therefore, the always-open opportunity for their application in countries seemingly exotic and far away."
There are two competing narratives in this book; one is the love the author has for the Kurds and the other is a testament to how much he has read and traveled. Readers will have to decide which one speaks to them more clearly.
March 7, 2019
This is a complicated time for such a book and a complicated time for the post WW2 world-order that many acknowledge, seems to be fraying. Clearly writing this work for an American audience French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, in very passionate and poetic fashion, tries to make the case for the US to reassert itself on the global stage. Even though I would agree with the point made in jest and attributed to many that, "War is god's way of teaching Americans geography," though of course there is no such thing as a god in any real sense, the position of the US on the global stage has been both marred, self-contradicting, and at times vacant in recent decades.
This is bound to be met with criticism as one of the general ideas that left and increasing portions of the right are coming to agree on is that we need fewer interventionist wars fought with no clear mission, no understanding of the quagmire into which we are stepping, no clear exit strategy, and which inevitable spin out of control to become humanitarian disasters for the region and for our own poorly treated veterans of said conflicts.
That being said, the rise in influence of the five "kings" identified by Lévy - Erdogan's Turkey, Putin's Russia, Xi Jinping's China, Khamenei's Iran, and MbS' Saudi Arabia - created by the vacuum of the US' abdication from the world stage following our recent disastrous endeavors is something which should be of concern and should be addressed. Since our floundering in recent decades there has not been a clear mission for our foreign policy and it seems many are complacent to allow this to continue. Having been so unsuccessful in our recent foreign interventions, there has been a casual isolationism creeping into many discussions of this area. What this work mainly succeeds in doing is making a case for such a vision without beating the bellicose drums of endless war.
There are times when the language and the connections BHL draws become stretched and tenuous, ironically when connecting to the very Biblical story that inspired the title of the work, as well as a bizarre analysis of the work of Bentham, and a pointless tangential and brief discussion of Dante.
What I will say is that this isn't just some imperialist tract that yearns for some imagined past golden age of Western or purely American dominance, rather, it is a brief challenge to complacency in the face of the increasing influence from persons and nations whose ascendence should not go unchallenged by anyone of any political persuasion and anyone possessing a modern notion of liberty, equality, and tolerance.
This is bound to be met with criticism as one of the general ideas that left and increasing portions of the right are coming to agree on is that we need fewer interventionist wars fought with no clear mission, no understanding of the quagmire into which we are stepping, no clear exit strategy, and which inevitable spin out of control to become humanitarian disasters for the region and for our own poorly treated veterans of said conflicts.
That being said, the rise in influence of the five "kings" identified by Lévy - Erdogan's Turkey, Putin's Russia, Xi Jinping's China, Khamenei's Iran, and MbS' Saudi Arabia - created by the vacuum of the US' abdication from the world stage following our recent disastrous endeavors is something which should be of concern and should be addressed. Since our floundering in recent decades there has not been a clear mission for our foreign policy and it seems many are complacent to allow this to continue. Having been so unsuccessful in our recent foreign interventions, there has been a casual isolationism creeping into many discussions of this area. What this work mainly succeeds in doing is making a case for such a vision without beating the bellicose drums of endless war.
There are times when the language and the connections BHL draws become stretched and tenuous, ironically when connecting to the very Biblical story that inspired the title of the work, as well as a bizarre analysis of the work of Bentham, and a pointless tangential and brief discussion of Dante.
What I will say is that this isn't just some imperialist tract that yearns for some imagined past golden age of Western or purely American dominance, rather, it is a brief challenge to complacency in the face of the increasing influence from persons and nations whose ascendence should not go unchallenged by anyone of any political persuasion and anyone possessing a modern notion of liberty, equality, and tolerance.
July 24, 2019
This has to be the worst book I’ve read in some time, at least among the ones I completed. I’ll admit that I stopped reading a few bad ones. My first impression was that the author was trying really hard to impress other intellectuals. But that façade couldn’t hide the fact that the world seems to be too complicated for his simplistic mind to grasp, or more accurately, he has the single path for the entire world, regardless the history and culture. I wish the world was a paradise, but I don’t see it happen anytime soon, unfortunately.
If the author cared about the Kurds so much, he should have asked what that biggest culprits, UK and his own France, did around the referendum time. It’s not like you can do whatever you want at any given time. If only those two had some remote considerations about the Kurds during WWI...
The author said "one should always be wary of the lenses through which one views the world." Very true, and this applies to himself as well.
This is the first book I’ve ever read by this author, and it’s safe to say that it will be the last. I’m surprised I actually finished it!
BTW, I’m not saying everything in the book is wrong, on the contrary, there are some very good points, especially about the role played by entities exemplified by GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple).
If the author cared about the Kurds so much, he should have asked what that biggest culprits, UK and his own France, did around the referendum time. It’s not like you can do whatever you want at any given time. If only those two had some remote considerations about the Kurds during WWI...
The author said "one should always be wary of the lenses through which one views the world." Very true, and this applies to himself as well.
This is the first book I’ve ever read by this author, and it’s safe to say that it will be the last. I’m surprised I actually finished it!
BTW, I’m not saying everything in the book is wrong, on the contrary, there are some very good points, especially about the role played by entities exemplified by GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple).
March 5, 2019
A beautiful, and enormously intelligent, rant. The Empire And The Five Kings is an exceptional book. Or rather, Bernard-Henri Levy has an exceptional voice; combining equal parts intelligence and poetry. Levy’s writing is evocative, almost rousing, and pulls from an enormous breadth of intellectual tradition.
However exceptional its approach, the argument of The Empire And The Five Kings is in certain respects lacking. Levy argues personally and emotionally for an interpretation of The Five Kings (China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) that is interesting but ultimately insubstantial. To call them straw men would be appropriate in both figurative and argumentative terms. The greater value lies with Levy’s interpretation of America as the West’s moral authority (or semi-predicative force!), inheriting its role from a long history of Western culture dating back to the Roman Empire. This is the greatest reason to read the book- and an important call to action- for the Western World’s conviction that its moral value deserves to be perpetuated.
However exceptional its approach, the argument of The Empire And The Five Kings is in certain respects lacking. Levy argues personally and emotionally for an interpretation of The Five Kings (China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) that is interesting but ultimately insubstantial. To call them straw men would be appropriate in both figurative and argumentative terms. The greater value lies with Levy’s interpretation of America as the West’s moral authority (or semi-predicative force!), inheriting its role from a long history of Western culture dating back to the Roman Empire. This is the greatest reason to read the book- and an important call to action- for the Western World’s conviction that its moral value deserves to be perpetuated.
April 6, 2019
Levy builds his theme on two pillars : the abdication of world leadership by the United States and the abandonment of the Kurdish people by the Syrians and Turks. His chief beliefs are the upholding of "Western values" dating back to classical Greece and the legitimacy of stateless peoples. Europe and the United States are besieged by what he refers to as the five "kingdoms", citing Biblical antecedents. These kingdoms are Iran, Turkey (Erdogan), China, Russia, and Syria. While I agree with his central thesis (and admire his intellectual breadth) , I feel his close connection to the current Kurdish situation dominates his thinking , perhaps at the expense of missing on other possible aspects of decay in the post WWII, post 1989 political order. However, this should not deter the reader. While one is tempted to recall Saul Bellow's complaint of "Where is the Proust of the Zulus?" while reading some of Levy's arguments, he does make a strong case for the Western ideals of freedom, governance, and leadership in today's uncertain world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews