contemporary idea-hawkers on Goodreads > Likes and Comments
date
newest »
newest »
I know what you mean, but feel the problem is far greater in politics than it is on Goodreads.
Indeed. It's as if the Age of (digital) Information has unwittingly thrown us all back into the age of medieval scholasticism. The doggerel and quackery of the internet is not very different than that of ye olde medieval square.
Feliks wrote: "the contemporary lunatic-fringe..."Steppin through 'em one -by-one may be profitable. Let's try it --
#1. Heaven Is Under the Feet of Governments: Steering Nations With Maqasid
Would absolutely never get off the ground. Period.
I myself work at near the highest level of decision-making in a big US city.
I can assure you nothing whatsoever of Islamic religious origin would ever be adopted by any branch of American government. No way, no how. It's unimaginable.
The ethical code for US governing bodies will always come from our founding forefathers. They give us our mandate. Our country's gods are secular.
At no time ever, will any kind of Islamic ethical 'steering' system be taken up by any US government office.
Not to overstate the obvious but: one of the chief tenets of our society is: separation of Church and State.
"Religio-ethical" paradigms are simply not permitted. It'd be inexcusable. They're indefensible, as a matter of practice. You can't introduce any religion into any US government procedure any where. Any time. Ever.
I --baldly --don't even care what fine detail the author has in mind for his visionary plan. It won't ever float anywhere in the West.
No one in US govt would dare to implement such "ideals"; no one would risk the public backlash from attempting to do so.
Case closed on Hash Pipe-Dream #1.
Still one more proof that the Last Days of Sodom™ are upon us is that any schmuck in possession of maybe 5 Canadian dollars ($3 US) can "publish" his worthless, delusional ravings.
Snicker. That's a sternly-worded verdict. But, I agree 100%.
I came across your recent post that included The Endless Pendulum among what you called a “lunatic fringe” of contemporary political writers on Goodreads. While I appreciate lively debate, I think it’s important to respond when misrepresentation happens — especially when it’s done without actual engagement.
By your own admission, you've only “chatted with or listened to (almost) all” of the authors you listed. That’s telling. Because had you read The Endless Pendulum, or spoken with me, you’d know that it’s not a manifesto, not utopian, and certainly not an attempt to “topple civilization.”
It’s a political-philosophical reflection on how democracies evolve and fracture — not a plan to redesign humanity from scratch. There’s no “pamphleteering” or zealotry in it — just questions, patterns, and historical inquiry.
I understand that bold titles and independent publishing can invite skepticism. But painting everyone with a broad brush based on superficial impressions is not critique — it’s performance. And in this case, it undermines the thoughtful conversation we should be having about politics, power, and ideology in our time.
If you choose to actually read the work, I welcome your disagreement. But until then, I’d ask that you refrain from casually assigning labels to writers you haven’t meaningfully engaged with.
Criticism is fair. Misrepresentation isn’t.
If Goodreads is becoming a platform for pamphlets, let’s at least agree that judging a book without reading it is the most pamphlet-like behavior of all.
By your own admission, you've only “chatted with or listened to (almost) all” of the authors you listed. That’s telling. Because had you read The Endless Pendulum, or spoken with me, you’d know that it’s not a manifesto, not utopian, and certainly not an attempt to “topple civilization.”
It’s a political-philosophical reflection on how democracies evolve and fracture — not a plan to redesign humanity from scratch. There’s no “pamphleteering” or zealotry in it — just questions, patterns, and historical inquiry.
I understand that bold titles and independent publishing can invite skepticism. But painting everyone with a broad brush based on superficial impressions is not critique — it’s performance. And in this case, it undermines the thoughtful conversation we should be having about politics, power, and ideology in our time.
If you choose to actually read the work, I welcome your disagreement. But until then, I’d ask that you refrain from casually assigning labels to writers you haven’t meaningfully engaged with.
Criticism is fair. Misrepresentation isn’t.
If Goodreads is becoming a platform for pamphlets, let’s at least agree that judging a book without reading it is the most pamphlet-like behavior of all.
Re: msg #7, this discussion.Hallo. Yes. I included your title on the list --rather as a 'placeholder' --so that I would not forget to return to it later. I'll be sure to add further detail when I get a chance.
However, I must point out that --so far (in the months which have passed since I first whipped up this casual little summary) I've yet to encounter a reason to recuse any of the books from inclusion.
I make my determination based on several factors.
Feel free to explore for yourself, and you'll see that rather uncannily, they all exhibit the exact same characteristics.
Just for example:
~Each of authors arrives on Goodreads in the exact same way.
~Each author showcases themselves using the exact same methods.
~Each author advertises their books in the exact same way.
~Sometimes using even the exact same phrases.
By this I mean, in the following fashion:
~Each author always protests being lumped-in with any other writer.
~Each author always insists they have a new set of ideas.
~Each swears they have some 'new way of thinking' to offer the world.
~Each author promises they have bold solutions to world problems.
And yet ...
~Several of them so far, boast only an embarrassing, meager handful of books listed on their personal Goodreads' bookshelf.
~One of them is a, "UFO investigator".
~Several have no degree or references, no scholarship whatsoever.
~Some of the publications have 'scanty' bibliographies at best.
Therefore, no --unfortunately, I cannot commit to purchasing, downloading, or reading any of these independent e-publications myself.
All I can suggest is that you simply carry on with your book-promotion plans as you intended.
Speaking for my own habits: I only read properly accredited, vetted, professional, authoritative texts.
But: If I ever detect any reason to omit your title [from inclusion with the others highlighted above], I'll certainly do so.
In the meantime: what I have done (just now) is to remove all editorializing from msg #1. Fair enough.
You were right about that. I should let the books speak for themselves.
"Judge the tree by it's fruit", as it were.
Feliks Dzerzhinsky, is your real name Jeff Cohen?
Is this your website? https://www.jeffcohen.org/
Is this your blurb on Wikipedia?
Jeff B. Cohen (born November 10, 1951) is an American journalist, media critic, professor, and the founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group in the US. He is a retired associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, where he was an endowed chair and founding Director of the Park Center for Independent Media. He was formerly a lawyer for the ACLU and authored or coauthored five books that criticize media bias, mainly written with 2012 California Congressional District 2 candidate, Norman Solomon, who missed the "top two" runoff by only 174 votes. Between 1997 and 2002, Cohen was a regular commentator for Fox News Channel's Fox News Watch, for MSNBC and CNN. He appeared in Outfoxed, a documentary critical of Fox News, and other documentaries.
It's not very nice to write reviews ragging on self-published authors when you haven't even read their books. It's strangely ironic that you criticize their scholasticism when you write reviews without even reading the books. It's more suitable for a fifth grader who spent their time playing video games instead of doing their homework. That you consider yourself the standard for scholarly judgement is ridiculous.
I imagine if one of these authors found you and gave you a five finger greeting to the face, that would be a good reason to take down your post and refrain from engaging in online bullying.
Is this your website? https://www.jeffcohen.org/
Is this your blurb on Wikipedia?
Jeff B. Cohen (born November 10, 1951) is an American journalist, media critic, professor, and the founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group in the US. He is a retired associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, where he was an endowed chair and founding Director of the Park Center for Independent Media. He was formerly a lawyer for the ACLU and authored or coauthored five books that criticize media bias, mainly written with 2012 California Congressional District 2 candidate, Norman Solomon, who missed the "top two" runoff by only 174 votes. Between 1997 and 2002, Cohen was a regular commentator for Fox News Channel's Fox News Watch, for MSNBC and CNN. He appeared in Outfoxed, a documentary critical of Fox News, and other documentaries.
It's not very nice to write reviews ragging on self-published authors when you haven't even read their books. It's strangely ironic that you criticize their scholasticism when you write reviews without even reading the books. It's more suitable for a fifth grader who spent their time playing video games instead of doing their homework. That you consider yourself the standard for scholarly judgement is ridiculous.
I imagine if one of these authors found you and gave you a five finger greeting to the face, that would be a good reason to take down your post and refrain from engaging in online bullying.
Cautiously replying to msg #9 of this thread. My comments preceded by initials 'FD'.
It's not very nice to write reviews ragging on self-published authors when you haven't even read their books.
FD: On the other hand, one needn't consume a whole bottle of stale milk to confirm it's gone sour.
It's strangely ironic that you criticize their scholasticism when you write reviews without even reading the books.
FD: It's certainly safe to make a few casual observations about a scurrilous genre of guerilla, 'Grub-Street' -style publishing.
Poorly-researched pamphlets and lunatic-fringe political manifestos? No need to tread lightly when appraising this phenomenon --as it were --"at arm's length".
For example, I've never read L. Ron Hubbard, never met L. Ron Hubbard --but I'm quite comfortable labeling him as a charlatan.
I hardly need to convert to scientology myself, or carry out a systemic analysis --from within his cult? --to inveigle against such ideas.
It's more suitable for a fifth grader who spent their time playing video games instead of doing their homework.
FD: Not at all. Anyone well-read is well within their rights to criticize yellow-journalism.
That you consider yourself the standard for scholarly judgement is ridiculous.
FD: My own credentials aren't even in question here. Not that I'd be made anxious in the slightest, if they were.
But the reason it is of no moment is that I'm hardly the only reader who disdains literature promulgating fads like UFOs, ESP, AI, and whatnot.
I imagine if one of these authors found you and gave you a five finger greeting to the face, that would be a good reason to take down your post and refrain from engaging in online bullying.
FD: I'm not bullying, not attacking, nor abusing anyone. There's nothing amiss in the thread I innocently started all these months ago.
But --just FYI --if there were something wrong, it would be the privilege of Tyler, [the group moderator ] to notify me; and in such case I would immediately remove all my remarks. It is his group and we are all subject to his oversight.
Certainly, being "punched in the nose" by anyone, is the least of my concerns.
Concern for credentials is unphilosophical. A genuine philosopher is interested in truth claims, not in who is authorized to make them.
Skallagrimsen wrote: "Concern for credentials is unphilosophical."re: msg #11
Back in some dim, distant, ancient past, perhaps. In the modern world authenticity matters very much in publishing. Sources & citations, rules of evidence; plagiarism & fraud.
In the modern world, the irresponsibility spreading of falsehoods has the potential to wreak great harm. 'Bad actors' and propagandists should be identified.
The modern practice of science, or law; or government? Facts certainly matter. Science itself was once called 'natural philosophy'; illustrating the relationship between the two.
Competence weighs big; professionalism (or lack thereof) can lead to sets of highly different outcomes. Barbers and barkeeps are not permitted to do the work of engineers or surgeons.
So ...all this on one side ...versus "hey everyone, --look at me -- I'm being philosophical over here".
Feliks wrote: "In the modern world, the irresponsibility spreading of falsehoods has the potential to wreak great harm. 'Bad actors' and propagandists should be identified."
So if you really were trying to do that, you'd actually read their books and write a proper review, instead of calling them charlatans and lunatics. You aren't doing this to make the world a better place, you're doing it because you enjoy bullying others with your pseudo intellect.
Let's try this exercise with you, Feliks, AKA Professor Jeff Cohen. When I saw your website, Jeff, I thought you looked like a child predator. Instead of keeping that impolite thought to myself, I decide that not only do you look like a child predator, you ARE a child predator. Now I come to a public forum and post PROFESSOR JEFF COHEN IS A CHILD PREDATOR. I haven't done any actual investigation, but as you say, a sniff of bad milk, even from a distance, is adequate. Well, we've talked now, and you definitely strike me as a child predator.
So PEOPLE, STAY AWAY and BEWARE OF JEFF COHEN, DOB 11/10/1951, SINCE HE IS A CHILD PREDATOR.
Now, anyone who might be interested in who you are and what you do for work, when they google you, they might come across this thread where someone seems to be ranting on about your bad character. But really, we got to take down these child predators, right? Who better to do it than people hiding anonymously?
So if you really were trying to do that, you'd actually read their books and write a proper review, instead of calling them charlatans and lunatics. You aren't doing this to make the world a better place, you're doing it because you enjoy bullying others with your pseudo intellect.
Let's try this exercise with you, Feliks, AKA Professor Jeff Cohen. When I saw your website, Jeff, I thought you looked like a child predator. Instead of keeping that impolite thought to myself, I decide that not only do you look like a child predator, you ARE a child predator. Now I come to a public forum and post PROFESSOR JEFF COHEN IS A CHILD PREDATOR. I haven't done any actual investigation, but as you say, a sniff of bad milk, even from a distance, is adequate. Well, we've talked now, and you definitely strike me as a child predator.
So PEOPLE, STAY AWAY and BEWARE OF JEFF COHEN, DOB 11/10/1951, SINCE HE IS A CHILD PREDATOR.
Now, anyone who might be interested in who you are and what you do for work, when they google you, they might come across this thread where someone seems to be ranting on about your bad character. But really, we got to take down these child predators, right? Who better to do it than people hiding anonymously?
re: msg #13deleted user wrote: "So if you really were trying to do that ..."
I haven't said I'm (personally) "trying to do" anything. I spoke of citizenly duties which rest upon all of our shoulders.
However, in reply to anyone's objection to my informal monitoring of 'Grub-St' -demagoguery on Goodreads, I naturally have solid rebuttal.
deleted user wrote: "you'd actually read their books and write a proper review ..."
They fully well hang themselves without any additional help from me. No need for me to 'pile on'.
Besides, I have my own affairs to attend to.
deleted user wrote: "instead of calling them charlatans and lunatics ..."
I've only done so, based on my interaction with them. Goodreads groups is where they fully 'out' themselves. By their own behavior.
deleted user wrote: "You aren't doing this to make the world a better place ..."
Every little bit helps. We must all do what we can when the situation presents itself.
deleted user wrote: "you're doing it because you enjoy bullying others. ..."
My history on Goodreads shows a very appreciative audience. I moderate 7-8 reader's groups; I've received hundreds of positive reviews.
Outside of Goodreads, I get bouquets of awards and garlands of flowers for writing and thinking.
Is that boasting? Very well, pardon me.
On the other hand, you are making rather preposterous, rather sniveling, rather unsupported accusations.
deleted user wrote: "with your pseudo intellect. ..."
I got da degrees to substantiate my position in the intellectual community. I got da professional career in the working world.
Ahem ...what exactly you got? Any papers? Any publications? Any standing? Any reputation at all?
deleted user wrote: "Let's try this exercise with you, Feliks, AKA Professor Jeff Cohen ..."
I haven't ever stated that I'm Cohen. You are easily gulled.
deleted user wrote: "HE IS A CHILD PREDATOR..."
You're free to assume whatever you wish about Cohen or anyone else at a distance.
However, Cohen has a lot of impeccable references to justify him as a scholar, a bonafide journalist, and a professional.
Summing up your tirade: your floundering around here, is picayune in the extreme.
It is wasting my time. Mundane. Your objections mean no more to me than shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.
Therefore:
Cordially, Sincerely, and Wishing You the Very Best in Health,
Ever yours,
"Feliks D."
AKA
'Butcher of the Lubyanka'
p.s. "Deleted User"? What's that all about? Nevermind.
Feliks wrote: "Re: msg #7, this discussion.Hallo. Yes. I included your title on the list --rather as a 'placeholder' --so that I would not forget to return to it later. I'll be sure to add further detail when I..."
No, it’s not possible. It’s not believable that your intellectual background was shaped by authoritative texts or by works with any scientific validity. I’m sorry, but you wouldn’t be so blinded by the appeal to authority if you had a proper education.
Feliks wrote: "re: msg #13deleted user wrote: "So if you really were trying to do that ..."
I haven't said I'm (personally) "trying to do" anything. I spoke of citizenly duties which rest upon all of our sh..."
Accusing a text of demagoguery without even knowing its content is highly inappropriate.
The education of someone who does that must necessarily be poor. I believe that you are the one engaging in propaganda, as many fanatics on the far right or far left often do. I can never recognize people like you. I certainly won’t sacrifice the pleasure of treating someone like you as you deserve for the sake of marketing.
You have learned from poor-quality texts that one must change the world in order to be recognized as an intellectual. It is Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. I doubt you have ever even heard of it. So you are confusing different levels of analysis.
Change your readings — there are good books out there. Pretending to have expertise in order to insult the hard work of someone who wrote a book without even having read it reveals a person of poor moral character and limited intellectual resources.
::rolling eyes::Folks, I beg your pardon for the dubious treat of seeing this ole thread being unearthed again.
I didn't accept his friend-request, and this is the result. Pin-the-tail-on-the-Marxist. Whew.
Feliks wrote: "::rolling eyes::Folks, I beg your pardon for the dubious treat of seeing this ole thread being unearthed again.
I didn't accept his friend-request, and this is the result. Pin-the-tail-on-the-M..."
You didn’t accept my friend request because you’re a coward. I expected that. The moment I saw the photo and read the name, I understood what kind of person I was dealing with. Don’t worry. I just wanted to see what kind of conspiratorial sewer you crawled out of.
Feliks wrote: "::rolling eyes::Folks, I beg your pardon for the dubious treat of seeing this ole thread being unearthed again.
I didn't accept his friend-request, and this is the result. Pin-the-tail-on-the-M..."
You use the name and photo of one of the worst criminals in history, and you claim to know who he is. I doubt that. I think you don’t really understand what you are doing. At least, I hope so. But perhaps you are a criminal too, or an aspiring one.
Feliks wrote: "re: msg #13deleted user wrote: "So if you really were trying to do that ..."
I haven't said I'm (personally) "trying to do" anything. I spoke of citizenly duties which rest upon all of our sh..."
Tell me why. What fascinated you about the name Felix Dzerzhinsky? What have you read about him? What made you choose the photo and name of such a cruel man?
Have you noticed lately, this trend of contemporary thinkers invading Goodreads?
[I'm speaking as just one man, with one raised eyebrow...]
1. Heaven Is Under the Feet of Governments: Steering Nations With Maqasid by Abdellatif Raji
2. An Economy of Want by Donald Power
3. Next Step for Democracy by David Grant
4. The Philosopher Kingdom by Jacquiesse Jacquiesse
5. Gnosodemocracy The Path Forward
6. Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights. a Road to Utopia by Mike Takac
7. The Physics of Life: The Evolution of Everything by Adrian Bejan
8. Democracy: Beyond Majority Rule
Mitigating Democracy’s Inherent Defficiencies : Suggestions for and from Ukraine
by Anatolii Miroshnychenko
9. Tethered
by Luis Norgueira
10. The Endless Pendulum: Democracy, Right Wing, Left Wing, and The Sacred Conflict of Power
by Ramkumar S P
11. 'Technoligarchy' Technoligarchy: The Rise of Tech Elites and the Future of Power
by Dr Idrees Arafath
[bookcover:Technoligarchy: The Rise of Tech Elites and the Future of Power]
12. One Opinion in 8 Billion: An Individual Perspective
by Thom Gordon
User page:
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1...
Author page:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
13. BUILDING A NEW CIVILIZATION: Technomeritocracy and AI in the Evolution of Civilization by
Ricardo Neves e Castro
Latest updates. Young Turks ...marching to different drummers ..the beat goes on!
14. REFLECTION. VISION. TRANSPARENCY.: A Thought on Human Nature and Society by Atharv Mishra
Atharv Mishra
15. FIVE LESSONS ON WISDOM: Power, Freedom, and Human Nature in the Panchatantra by
Davide Smith Borrelli
16. ZOMBIES OF MARX: The Return of Practical Reason by Davide Smith Borrelli