A real bore. This guy quotes so many people from the beginning of time to the present, that you wonder if he's at all original. In fact, if you took away all his quotable quotes, this book would only be half as long a bore as it is.

The usual drivel about Islamic fanaticism vs. Western thought and the [our] "way of life." This hack takes us back for a history lesson and calls us "actors;" in which will soon grate on your nerves when he does that one too many times. Of course we "Westerners" are just a bunch of ignorant, materialistic "actors" who will never understand what makes the fanatic tick. Like he's the only "enlightened one." Run-of-the-mill "know-it-all" that may put you to sleep just by reading the Preface. I did....fall asleep, that is. Don't waste your time or money on this one.

An important book changes your view of your world. Harris' "The Suicide of Reason" succeeds in doing this and points out serious threats to the survival of Western Civilization from the inside and the outside. Harris shows that the most important message that America's leaders have failed to grasp is that not everybody sees the world the same way. Harris' "rational actors" act to change their culture out of enlightened self interest whereas his "tribal actors" act to preserve their culture. Nominally the conflict is presented as fanatical Islam's tribal actors versus the West's rational actors, but his paradigm applies to groups within the West as well. As you read this book you will recognize "tribal" views in many rabid Democratic Party supporters, Chicago Bear's fans and Intelligent Design advocates, among others. These people have ceased listening to any counter-positions.

The "tribal mind" dominated Earth until The Enlightenment. How did this revolutionary change come to occur? Harris invokes Hobbes, Spinoza, Condorset, Locke, Marx, Huxley, Voltaire and others to show how it took root in the time of the French Revolution and came to fruition in America.

Is it inevitable that the rational actors' democratic ideal will come to dominate the world? It looks like it will be unlikely to survive without a prompt change of direction by the West. Recent western generations have ceased acting in ways to protect their hard won culture. They are now dissipating this monumental asset in the name of political correctness. "Right thinking has replaced real thinking."

Harris' rephrased titular question, "Does reason commit suicide when it blinds itself to the reality and the power of the irrational?", presents the West's primary problem: its leaders live under the delusion that everybody looks at the world the same way. They must consider that different groups have very different perceptions of the world. All problems can't be resolved by win-win positive thinking; inevitably testosterone will enter into the equation. The most rational among us must accept that in the world of the blind the one-eyed man isn't king by divine right.

This is an exceptionally insightful book that deserves to be read by serious people seriously concerned about the survival of their political and cultural traditions into the next generation.

The author offers --very briefly-- a fairy-tale version of Orthodox Judaism, whitewashed by Martin Buber and explained away as totally assimilationist in America. He dares not speak the words "rabbinic fanaticism." He's never heard of the Shas party rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, who demands the annihilation of the Palestinian "Amalek" on Talmudic grounds, or of the settlers in the occupied territories motivated by religious fanaticism and hatred. He doesn't want to go there because his audience of neo-cons, who are not really interested in stemming the tide of fundamentalism and advancing reason, would drop out of his cheering section if he did. As Evelyn Kaye ("The Hole in the Sheet") and Israel Shahak ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion") have testified, the world's most ironclad dictatorship over the human mind is the rabbinic dictatorship. There is nothing reasonable about supremacist Talmudic religion, but the author will not countenance these facts. During the Enlightenment era, Judaism was classed with Islam as a black hole of tyranny. The "West" of this book is a sanitized version in which the Orthodox rabbis and Voltaire are united in defense of reason. Preposterous!

I like this book. This is the kind of practical, popular, political philosophy that once constituted the foundation of our 'republic of letters.' The author wields the editorial flair of an autodidact and a generalist, the kind that is despised by academic philosophy. He flits from Hamas to Hegel, from Churchill to Condorcet, with directness and grace. The reader will be hard-pressed not to learn something interesting along the way.

But this is not the sort of book that will be around in 5, let alone 50 years. The overheated and fearful tone will appeal to paleoconservatives, the readers of Front Page Magazine and "Seth J. Frantzman." More sober audiences may be a bit skeptical of Harris's thesis: that Civilization is in mortal danger because it lacks the will to defend itself.

Harris is nominally in favor of Reason, the Enlightenment and Civilization, but he thinks they are kind of effeminate and ineffectual. Instead, we should look to the law of the jungle and biology. At root, Harris is a postmodernist in the mold of Carl Schmitt. For him, Reason is not a idea with any substance, it is an empty viral meme. And this meme is rapidly losing its habitat in competition with another highly contagious meme - Islam. We owe loyalty to Reason because it is 'our' meme. We owe enmity to Islam because it is 'theirs.' It is tempting to characterize this as a sort of fascism - founded on memetic, rather than genetic, community.

Harris thinks the West needs to sober up and start landing some punches because the barbarians are now at the gates. This means returning to a 'visceral code' (Harris's term) of "us-and-them," and dispensing with all the high-falutin' universalism. Harris thinks people like Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz are essentially fellow-travellers in the foolhardy attempt to engage the rest of the world as human subjects. Instead, liberals and conservatives alike must get hip to the intractable realities of global tribalism.

And here lies the contradiction: to defend liberal rationalism Harris would retreat to Nietzschean nihilism - to him this is a position of strength. I disagree. Reason is not such a withering violet. It gave us political correctness, but it also dropped the atom bomb. By contrast, 'Islam' has lost every territorial battle it has fought in the past 400 years. The 'Suicide of Reason' may make a nice headline, but it's nothing for reasonable people to lose sleep over.

I like this book. This is the kind of practical, popular, political philosophy that once constituted the foundation of our 'republic of letters.' The author wields the editorial flair of an autodidact and a generalist, the kind that is despised by academic philosophy. He flits from Hamas to Hegel, from Churchill to Condorcet, with directness and grace. The reader will be hard-pressed not to learn something interesting along the way.

But this is not the sort of book that will be around in 5, let alone 50 years. The overheated and fearful tone will appeal to paleoconservatives, the readers of Front Page Magazine and "Seth J. Frantzman." More sober audiences may be a bit skeptical of Harris's thesis: that Civilization is in mortal danger because it lacks the will to defend itself.

Harris is nominally in favor of Reason, the Enlightenment and Civilization, but he thinks they are kind of effeminate and ineffectual. Instead, we should look to the law of the jungle and biology. To Harris, Reason is no substantial truth or method, but rather just another empty viral meme. And this meme is rapidly losing its habitat in competition with another highly contagious meme - Islam.

Apparently, the West has to sober up and start landing some punches because the barbarians are now at the gates. This means returning to a 'visceral code' (Harris's term) of "us-and-them," and dispensing with all the high-falutin' universalism. Harris thinks people like Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz are essentially fellow-travellers in the foolhardy attempt to engage the rest of the world as human subjects. Instead, liberals and conservatives alike must get hip to the intractable realities of global tribalism.

And here lies the contradiction: to defend liberal rationalism Harris would retreat to Nietzschean nihilism - to him this is a position of strength. I disagree. Reason is not such a withering violet. It may have given us political correctness, but it also designed the atom bomb and then had the will to drop it. By contrast, 'Islam' has lost every territorial battle it has fought in the past 400 years. The 'Suicide of Reason' may make a nice headline, but it's nothing for reasonable people to lose sleep over.

The historian Allan Nevins argues that one of the "causes" of the American Civil War was the general failure to imagine how horrible such a war would be. He suggests someone needs to think of the worst. Lee Harris, author and frequent contributor to Policy Review and the Wall Street Journal, claims this is the reason for writing this book.

The Suicide of Reason illustrates how the western world and the Law of Reason may be causing its own demise and facilitating a return to the Law of the Jungle. It questions the U.S. national policy of promoting democracy abroad. It challenges the liberal AND conservative aspects of President Bush's policies. It examines world politics through a realist lens. The greatest challenge to the liberal West is: Can Reason save us?

Harris's book is broken into five major sections. The first section gives a background of Fanaticism and Reason. It explains how the two schools of thought were formed. He examines the French and Spanish Revolutions and demonstrates how they each moved through the Law of the Jungle and the Law of Reason.

The second section explores the politics of Reason and Hobbesian theory. How did early man, caught up in the struggle for survival, become transformed into rational actors? How did we learn to hold our tongues or fists, to take each other seriously, and appreciate each others' point of view? How did we learn to stand in line?

Next, Harris explains Condorcet's Tenth Stage of Reason and the institution of education. Public education, in a secular state, weans the child away from the superstitions, prejudice, bigotry, and fanaticism of the parent. Education in a non-secular state can be used for indoctrinate into radicalism, tribalism or jihad.

The fourth section examines fanaticism and how jihad can actually be logical. Politicians claim that moderate Muslims should denounce jihad and terrorism. Harris argues there is no incentive for this to happen. Jihad and terrorism have proven to be effective at promoting Islam throughout the world and time. Why would rational Muslims denounce actions that are helping Islam grow throughout the world?

The last section questions how Western society can survive and explores a possible New World Order. He argues that American policy makers have confused populism with liberal democracy. Populism is the politics of the tribal mind, whereas democracy is the politics of the rational actor. How can the election of Hamas to leadership among the Palestinians be considered a liberal democracy? Populism is nearly a return to the Law of the Jungle.

This book makes no effort to be politically correct. Lee Harris compels policy makers to evaluate National Strategy and U.S. actions in the Middle East. He looks at the "Long War" and presents his view from a societal context. I recommend this book for any reader who wants a differing and challenging view of the "Long War" and radical Islam.

One would think that a book with the word "Reason" in it's title would say something intelligible about it.

Contrary to what this author says about tribalism and western rational actors, the conflict between Islam and the West is grounded in religion. The actions of the 9/11 suicide terrorists are perfectly explicable, even their pre-attack patronage of Vegas strip clubs, when understood as obedience to a god composed of pure unconstrained will.

If Harris had seriously studied western philosophy, he would have discovered that western religious tradition contrasts with Islam. The post-modern intellectual affirming the relativity of truth, whose conception of reason is truncated in positivism (like Harris) is the real fanatic in this drama.

He is unwilling, as a matter of un-reasoning conviction, to consider reason encompassing all that the mind can conceive. Thus he is ill-equipped to converse with believing Muslims or counter their devotion to a god who wills submission as opposed to a Judeo-Platonic-Christian heritage affirming freedom of human will and a god constrained by love of man.

AS EVIL FANTASIES GO, THIS ONE'S A TRUE GEM; FEAR-MONGERING PROPAGANDA AT ITS BEST!!

JUST AS IN HIS PREVIOUS BOOK, 'CIVILIZATION AND ITS ENEMIES - THE NEXT STAGE OF HISTORY' "POLICY REVIEW THINK-TANK EXPERT" LEE HARRIS' "REASONING" AND "CONCLUSIONS" ARE BOTH CHILDISHLY SIMPLE-MINDED AND SOLELY FEAR-BASED INITIATIVES. IN THIS NEW BOOK, HOWEVER, HE RESORTS TO TRYING TO INVENT HIS OWN LITTLE DEFINITIONS (CALLING "US" THE SOCIETY OF "RATIONAL ACTORS" BECAUSE, TO HIM, WE "ACT RATIONALLY" AND CALLING "THEM" THE "TRIBAL FANATICS;" BUT, BY USAGE, HIS DEFINITION OF "FANATIC" SIMPLY MEANS TO ACT "DETERMINED" AND BE STALWART AND RESOLUTE OF PURPOSE. BY USAGE, TOO, HIS SPECIOUS TERM "RATIONAL ACTOR"
MEANS BASICALLY "TRAITOR" "MORAL RELATIVIST" AND SELFISH INDIVIDUALIST; OPPOSED TO COMMUNAL STANDARDS; I.E: VAIN, INANE, INTEGRITY-FREE AND MEDIA-INSPIRED, CHILDISH LITTLE CLONES OF THOSE AMORAL VACUOUS, TENDENTIOUS, DELUSIVELY DUPLICITOUS, FEAR-AND-GREED ORIENTED "SALESMEN" THAT CURRENTLY RUN THIS PART OF THE WORLD BEST KNOWN TO HARRIS AND HIS ILK AS "THE WEST."

FURTHER, SO AS NOT TO INSULT THE POWERS-THAT-BE, HE PREFERS CALLING OUR GREEDY CAPITALIST SALES-SOCIETY'S OVERWEENING GREED-CREED 'ETHOS' MERELY AN INNOCENTLY "CARPE-DIEM" SOCIETY. BUT CARPE DIEM, AS WE ALL KNOW, SIMPLY MEANS TO 'SEIZE THE DAY.' WE ARE ALL, OF COURSE, MEDIA INDOCTRINATED TO BE A CHILDISH, SELFISH, GRASPING AND ID-MOTIVATED, THEFT-ORIENTED SOCIETY, DELIBERATELY AND NARCISSISTICALLY PROGRAMMED TO BE DEVOID OF THE CHARACTER NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR LARCENOUS ACTIONS, YET HARRIS TRIES TO SPIN HIS BOOK IN A DELUSIVE MANNER TO BOTH BLAME THE VICTIMS (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, ISLAM IN GENERAL), WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY LAUDING THE AFTER-THE-FACT DUPLICITOUS EXCUSES AND ALIBIS
OF THOSE PERPETRATING THE OIL-WAR THEFT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AS BEING SOMEHOW ONLY "NOBLE, YET NAIVE."

A LOWLY SALES-WORM HIMSELF, HE MIS-USES THE WRITINGS OF THOSE PHILOSOPHICAL PREDECESSORS WHO MIGHT BEST BE SPUN TO BE MADE TO SEEM TO AGREE WITH HIS SPECIOUS EXCUSES FOR REASONING TO MIS-DIRECT US AND CO-OPT OUR SHAME INTO SUPPORTING HIS LITTLE FABLE. HE DELIBERATELY DROPS THE MOST FAMOUS NAMES AVAILABLE BUT FOCUSES ON THOSE WRITINGS WHERE THEIR EXPERTISE AND COMPREHENSION IS THE WEAKEST, USING, FOR INSTANCE, THE LEAST KNOWLEDGEABLE TO PONTIFICATE ON THOSE VERY SUBJECTS THEY ARE LEAST QUALIFIED TO COMMENT UPON: HE MIS-REPRESENTS, FOR INSTANCE, THE SIMPLE "GOLDEN RULE" OF ALL CIVILIZATIONS (BASICALLY, "TO NOT ATTACK FIRST") BY SIMPLY QUOTING AN "AUTHORITY" WHO KNEW LITTLE OF IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. "THUS" USING TAUTOLOGY-BASED RHETORIC INSTEAD OF ACTUAL REASONING, HE SPINS A FABULIST SCENARIO OF TRULY EXECRABLE PARANOIA,
PREYING ON OUR FEARS OF "THE OTHER" TO GAIN FOLLOWERS AND POWER BY TOEING THE PARTY LINES AND ACTIVELY NOMINATING HIMSELF AS CHIEF APOLOGIST OF SUCH INTELLECTUAL LUMINARIES AS GEORGE W. BUSH.

HE MAY AS WELL CALL HIMSELF "THE NEW CARL SCHMITT," (OLD NAZI GERMANY'S CHIEF FEAR-MONGERING APOLOGIST AND PROMOTER OF THE SIMPLISTIC "WE ALL HAVE ENEMIES; IT IS PEACE THAT IS THE 'EXCEPTIONAL' MODE" DOCTRINE OF INANE AND SELF-SERVING PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY); HARRIS IS NO BETTER SUITED TO EXPOUND TO US ON HISTORY THAN THE LOSER, SCHMITT, NEITHER MORALLY NOR INTELLECTUALLY; IN FACT, HIS SPECIOUS "REASONING" AND PROPAGANDA ATTEMPTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN UNACKNOWLEDGED VINTAGE SCHMITT, WHOLLY REGURGITATED AND YET DUPLICITOUSLY "ACCREDITED" TO MANY OTHER, LESS QUALIFIED YET BETTER KNOWN SO-CALLED ACADEMICS. THIS BOOK, IN SHORT, IS PATHETIC, WAR-MONGERING FEAR-PROPAGANDA AND A SHALLOW, SADLY OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE US INTO BUYING INTO MORE OF THE SAME.

AS BEFORE, HIS PATHETIC LINE OF PSEUDO-REASONING FOLLOWS THIS SIMPLISTIC PATTERN:

A) WE "COULD" HAVE ENEMIES; EVEN PARANOIDS "CAN" HAVE SOME REAL ENEMIES.
B) "SO:" WE "MUST" HAVE REAL ENEMIES; IT'S JUST THE BASIC LAW OF THE JUNGLE.
C) "SINCE" WE THEREFORE "DO" HAVE ENEMIES, WE'D BE FOOLS TO NOT ATTACK FIRST.
D) IN ORDER TO ATTACK FIRST, WE "NEED" TO GET RID OF OUR CURRENT PEACE-BASED LAWS OF MORALITY, BASED ON THAT SILLY LITTLE 'GOLDEN RULE' OF CIVILIZATION.
E) AMERICA WAS "LUCKY" TO FORM ON A CONTINENT FREE OF ENEMIES; IT'S UN-NATURAL.
F) IN SHORT, TO WIN AGAINST THE JUNGLE-LAW FANATICS WHO "WILL" ATTACK US, WE "NEED" TO BECOME EXACTLY LIKE THEM: SAVAGE, BARBARIAN FANATICS! AND QUICKLY!
G) TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TRANSFORMATION INTO A FEAR-BASED SOCIETY, "RIGHT-THINKERS" "LIKE US" OBVIOUSLY NEED TO: ELECT DICTATOR! BREAK GOLDEN RULE! ATTACK FIRST!
H) BARRING THESE "REASONABLE" REQUESTS, WE'D NEED TO BREED MORE GUNG-HO AND SOCIALLY UN-CONSTRAINED "ALPHA-MALE" JOCKS, TO COMBAT THE MUSLIMS. SO: "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!"

AND SO: FEAR! FEAR SOME MORE!! WHY AREN'T YOU ALL AFRAID YET?!?! DAMMIT! FEAR WITH ME! LOL!! IN SUM, IF YOU'RE A GREEDY, WAR-MONGERING RIGHT-WING FANATIC IN SEARCH OF A GOOD BOOK FULL OF PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL EXCUSES TO SALVE YOUR DESERVEDLY PARANOID, GUILTY CONSCIENCE, THIS ONE'S FOR YOU!

ENJOY! ;-)

I found this an excellent read. I enjoyed exploring the author's perspective on this crucial topic - much of which I have now incorporated into my own. I'm an analytical type and therefore especially appreciated the author's attention to premise-evidence based argument.

Harris does a fine job of examining fanaticism and why we in the West had better redefine our notion of the term at some point before the caliphate gets here. He says our enlightened society is as much a happy accident as a product of any ethos and that we can lose it as quickly as we found it. The selfish pursuit of our own interests leads to economic benefits but also leads to us each being a civilization of one. In the face of serious threats to our way of life, there is no cohesion and no enthusiasm to mount a common defense.

A tribal society on the other hand has no notion of the individual but has great durability in the face of adversity and tremendous capacity to force itself on others.

I disagree with some of his observations about the current military efforts underway and his conclusions seem rather narrow but still a quite fascinating study of the current state of civilization.

Lee Harris is correct to point out that Islamic fanaticism is resistant to normal methods of resolution - eg. negotiation, economic sanctions, and conventional armed confrontation. Further, reason, tolerance, consensus, and deliberation cannot defend against ruthless violence. Islamic fanaticism sees fanatical devotion and commitment to the pack, accompanied by fanatical hatred of heathen enemies as virtues.

Calling 9/11 hijackers "faceless cowards," suicide-bombers as "homicide-bombers," or stating that "we all want the same things" grossly misreads the situation, say Harris. So does believing that bringing democracy to the Middle East gets at the "root causes" of terrorism.

Harris concludes that the ultimate outcome between the rational West and radical Islam cannot be predicted, and offers no clear path out of the quandary. Obviously not all Islamics are radicals - the topic would greatly benefit from insights from them.

Mr. Harris paints with a broad brush -- the two strains of humankind that populate the planet, viz., rational actors and tribal actors. It takes little insight as to who is who. In this view, political disputes between "rational" actors and tribal communities are subject to an ultimate Darwinianism of "might makes right," once reason can no longer settle serious differences. Harris cites numerous cases in the past to give credence to his point.

One area that he does not mention -- a point that should be raised -- is that the "tribal" violence that is always associated with Islam is endemic to its texts. According to any fair reading of the Qur'an, Allah is, among other qualities, a capricious and a hateful deity (to non-Muslims), or at least this is what Muhammad taught to his followers. For this reason, the bifurcation of all human society into Muslims and infidels is the fundamental source of most of the violence associated with Islam over the centuries, even to the present day. Of course, Harris considers this fanatacism of the worst sort, but a powerfully motivating force that continues to bind all Muslims together: Dar al Islam vs. Dar al Harb. There is no enlightenment for Islamic societies because their religious beliefs and political ideology discourage or even prohibit freethinking.

All Americans should consider Harris' views not only to evaluate the truths his analysis reveals, but also that we may better evaluate the probity and depth of understanding (or lack of) in our elected officials who are to make foreign policy that is to deal with these alien and hostile elements.

A thought-provoking and serious argument that is well worth reading.

A great wake-up call for all who can tear themselves away from reality shows to look at the reality of radical Islam. Give a copy to each of the ostriches in your community.

This book looks at the showdown between Western classical liberal culture and the culture of aggressive, radical Islam. The author delivers a carefully developed apriori commentary on the situation. I respect Lee Harris's opinions much more than some of the better known political and historical authors and I will vouch that this guy is as sharp as they come. That said, I think this book was a little premature, in that our invasion of Fortress Islam, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has just now begun to look like it will survive the enemy's counterattack. Mr. Harris's book is critical of the idea that a Western republic might be established in in heart of the beast's lair, but very recent news is suggesting that MAYBE we have established a beachhead of sorts from which Western-style, classical liberalism will begin to undermine the tyrannical regimes of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, at a minimum. The Iraqi effort seemed so much more in doubt at the time of this book's authoring, and the situation is very far from resolved now, so that my criticism should be taken as fairly mild.

I recommend Lee Harris as an author, especially his articles for Policy Review (see "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" in that publication), but this particular book is not, my opinion, his best.

Well written, and researched. Lee Harris reallly got my attention, I am not sure that the Liberal West has the stomach for The Challenge of Islamic Fanaticism.

THE SUICIDE OF REASON: RADICAL ISLAM'S THREAT TO THE WEST is a recommended pick for any college-level collection strong in Islamic studies, East/West politics, interactions and social issues. It argues that the basic Western concept of a possible democracy in Iraq is itself misguided - and the notion of fostering a Western style liberal democracy only encourages radical Islam. The West is in a war with Islamic fanaticism - and THE SUICIDE OF REASON charts this war, offering up original thinking and analysis as well as better strategies for East/West relations.

This book is deeply thoughtful, and analytically credible.

His analysis of the strengths/ weaknesses of liberal Western thought and Islam is highly plausible.

Like his previous book, it is worth a re-read.

The book is extremely readable, of great interest to both the person who knows nothing about history, and to the real experts.
Mr. Harris does this by
1)leading the reader, step by step, through the events and thoughts that have shaped the west, and have a bearing on the situation of the US now. This is accessible to everybody, and convincing.
2)for the expert, Mr. Harris offers a unique view of all the events/thoughts as well as exploring a lot of "what ifs".
3) the language is clear and powerful.
I wish to respond to some of the reviewers who have said that they disagree with the writer on a lot of things. It seems to me that the aim of the book is to challenge everyone's ideas, or notions, about a great many things- to create a dialogue about the current situation.
I also wish to respond to reviewers who give the impression that this is about either fanaticism or Islam. To me, it is far more about the effective response by the West to fanaticism. Effectiveness, what works, is the point.
The US is in an environment which does not allow much room for error. Voters and policy makers have to do it right, and this book is a contribution to that. It also expresses points not aired in any press.
I also think that the book might have benefitted from a few footnotes and exploration of nuances in the current situation. At the same time, that would likely have detracted from the principle message, and made the book more cumbersome to read. As is, it works, and hooks the reader like the best thriller.
Thank you.

Mr. Harris has written a needed and insightful book however in his enthusiasm for the topic he often ignores the strengths of the West, the advantages of liberalism (classical), and the less than monolithic character of Islam. Nevertheless this is a good wake-up call for those who consistently underestimate the seriousness of this assault on western culture and values. Challenging western values and culture is not inherently wrong however when the challenge is based on a nihilistic outlook such as that of the current Islamist fanatics, it must not be taken lightly.

Lee Harris writes another thought-provoking treatise on the state of world affairs since 9/11. While his first book, Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History, discusses the problem of the enemy and the modern, liberal's propensity to forget the enemy's ruthless nature, The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West, offers a much more concrete and relevant explanation of the enemy facing the modern, liberal culture-bloc of the West.

Mr. Harris presents an audacious account of Western evasion (and unconscious complicity through multiculturalism) of the threat of Radical Islam's Fanaticism. In doing so, he satisfies many readers who are interested to know more of this particular threat, which he might have failed to accomplish with his first work. This satisfaction may be short-lived when one confronts the enmormity and scope of the challenge for the West as Mr. Harris provides a cogent scenario for the collapse of the Western world by Fanatical Islam.

By defining the battle-lines of Enlightened West and Fanatical Islam in the clash of cultures, Mr. Harris pulls together a masterful argument for drawing these distinctions by examining the history of Reason-based societies, the mystification of Reason, the cultural-preservationism of Fanatical Islam and jihad as a tool for spreading this culture. The result is a logical account of fanaticism and jihad to explain many current events: Al-Qaeda's spectacular acts of terror against Western countries, the "cartoon riots," and the events at the "Red Mosque" in Pakistan.

The prose is much easier to read and comprehend this time around; although, many will find his message too outrageous to consider. The lack of scholarly presentation of his position will be sure to ruffle feathers of intellectuals couped up in the Ivory Tower, but the book is sure to stimulate thought and discussion among those wanting a better understanding of the current War of Cultures.

Overall, I found this to be a well-conceived and well written book. I agreed with much that the author had to say, especially that the triumph of Western liberalism is by no means inevitable, and the strength of the radical Islam jihadist movement. However, I thought that Harris was somewhat myopic in his understanding of the West. He seems to believe that Western secular liberalism sprung fully formed from the foreheads of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. However, this rationalist culture is only the tip of the iceberg of western culture, resting on a more massive Judaeo-Christian base. The reason that the culture of reason came about only in the west is because the second person of the Christian Trinity is defined as Logos, reason, and therefore creation has some inner rationality to it. Sixteen hundred years of christian philosophy and theology developed this notion of a reasonable God. All Locke, Hobbes and the rest of the Enlightenment thinkers did was to secularize this corpus of thought. Secular fairness is just the pasty modern form of Christian love. Most contemporary sociologists have abandoned the secularization thesis, especially in the United States. By reconnecting with its roots in Judaism and Christianity, the west could regain its ideological vitality to be able to confront the vigor of jihad. Harris only cited a few strands of these roots, in St. Anselm and the Reformation thinkers.

Lee Harris is a deep thinker and he has some very interesting and complex ideas. However, I feel that he needed to think even more deeply, as I often found what he said to be overly general, overly simplified, and exaggerated.

Harris says that since we are living in an era in which (on the whole) "laws of the jungle" appear "to have been repealed," many intelligent members of our communities are making some disastrous and mind-boggling mistakes. These include beliefs by both liberals and neo-conservatives about the prospects for improving relations with much of the Muslim world.

What are the laws of the jungle? Here, I think Harris is a little off. He says they are: that there are no rules, that loners are losers, and that one must support one's own tribe or pack and act with utter ruthlessness towards those outside that pack. But these are big exaggerations! There are always rules (although they may change). Loners often do just fine, by postponing their choices of allies. And while ruthlessness towards powerful and bullying enemies is sometimes essential, ruthlessness in general is counterproductive, even in the jungle.

Harris realizes that fanaticism is not the same thing as tribalism, and that neither are the same as irrationality, but he fails to keep distinguishing them. He does say that the fanatic is "someone who is willing to make a sacrifice of his own self-interest for something outside himself," but I think this is a weak definition. I think the key element of fanaticism is to be able to ignore or deny reality at will in support of one's cause. And such fanaticism does give one some clear disadvantages.

The author argues that the triumph of Western liberalism is by no means inevitable. That's true. And he points out that those who are stubborn have an advantage over those who are more reasonable. Of course, stubborn individualists, as Harris explains, are precisely those who fight the tribalists! But I think the advantages of being stubborn are overrated. Flexibility and patience are good qualities too!

In a few places, Harris makes some strong points. For example, he points out that we are making a mistake to dismiss folks such as Neville Chamberlain as being simpletons and fools: they were considered smart at the time, and only in retrospect is it so obvious how wrong they were. That is, smart people and even smart leaders can be just as wrong today. By the way, most folks agree that had Britain stopped Germany from militarizing the Rhineland in 1935, that might have stopped the National Socialists on the spot, but Harris says that had Britain done that, it (not Germany) would have gone on record as a warmonger! And Harris also points out a great similarity between Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz: both blame terrorism on an evil system; they merely disagree on which system is evil. Neither really blame the terrorists!

Harris also reminds us that if we snootily say that we fought Iraq over oil, we ought to admit that in the Second World War, Japan wound up in a war in part because it decided to grab some oil that did not belong to it. And he points out that "jihad" is not at all what we Westerners would classify as a "just war." Furthermore, he properly indicates that it is important to pay attention to reality, not to "justify" it.

Harris implies that reason can lead to its own destruction by failing to acknowledge the power of unreason. But I think that's silly: it's always an advantage to have a deeper understanding of reality, and reason provides it.

There is a long discussion of shame and its uses, and Harris warns us that in wartime, shamelessness increases. But he fails to remind us that it is almost impossible to shame a group of people into dying for what they think is nothing: killing people pretty much requires violence!

Harris says that the essence of fanaticism is to follow the collective mind blindly and without criticism, but this is surely an exaggeration and caricature: it would actually scare off allies and tribe members! I think fanatics come close to doing just this, but they appear (especially to themselves) to be somewhat more open-minded. The key, as far as I am concerned, is that whenever they feel like it, they toss reality, facts, and logic to the winds. Harris does indeed say that "a fanatic is someone for whom logic and rational debate mean nothing."

Can Muslim fanatics lose? Of course! Any fanatics carry with them the seeds of their own defeat simply by their devaluing of truth. But Harris doesn't say that. Instead, he worries about the fact that many Muslims are unlikely to be converted, assimilated, or even seduced by Western culture. And he says that "the struggle for survival will again create an Us versus Them mindset" in which "the liberal internationalist will increasingly be looked upon as a traitor to his tribe." While there is some risk of this, I think it is a big exaggeration: one can be a liberal without supporting an enemy!

One point that Harris makes that I like is that the Western intellectual elite "has tended to see their role not as spokesmen for popular sentiment but as critics of it." That is, they often fought the prejudices, superstitions, and intolerance of the masses instead of supporting them. That's true. But does it mean that intellectuals who do support such intolerance have an advantage? In my opinion, it may not.

I think this is an interesting book, and it makes one think. But I often disagree with what the author has to say.

If you have read Harris' Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History you have read the first installment of this book. But Harris has had a few more years to observe and think about the clash between Islam's followers and those whom they declare to be "infidels."
Harris examines fanaticism with a look through history that most in the West have no understanding of. His observations of the Crusades, Fascist Germany, Stalin's USSR and other such movements are fresh insights into their ability to find common ground with current Islamists' view of the righteousness of their cause. Harris is also able to show that the West's victory over fanaticism, based upon the Enlightenment, in many ways, have given most in the West a false sense of inevitability when it comes to a generally assumed myopia that Western notions of a civilized society will somehow prevail.
Harris is never "politically correct" but usually correct about politics including the polity of Islam and the West's arrogance in thinking that they can count on their world always being the victor without having to lift a finger to win.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything Harris says in this book, it is one that everyone should read.
Another great book.