The writing of this book was a rotten job, but it was absolutely
necessary. If someone had to do it, I am very glad that it was Dmitry Orlov.
Without his wit, alacrity and experience, the task of beating the horse of the Cartesian
approach to understanding our dying world to death would have resulted in
something unbearably maddening, dry and uninspiring. In this book he sneaks
some LOLROF side-splitters in when you least expect them. One gathers from Orlov’s
painstaking efforts, the futility of looking to outdated constructs and
philosophies for understanding and relief from a crisis that demands complete
innovation and inspiration.
Reading closely, one sees Orlov carefully planting seeds of
reconciliation with our planet and each other throughout—as a fundamental baseline.
He arrives at places outside the box of the current meme by using methodologies
and analyses that are sacramental within the meme. That’s an achievement.
Perhaps in his next book he will stand on that ground more forcefully and tell
us what he sees. We don’t need to understand collapse right now as much as we
need to survive it. And that is where Dmitry Orlov rises through the rubble and
gives us magnificent gems like this: “At
the rock bottom of human survival, there is no individual and there is no
state; there is only the family, or, if there isn’t, there is something that’s
not quite human—or there is nothing at all.”
Michael C. Ruppert
4 comments:
@Rupppert
So is Dmitry one of your hundred monkeys or are you one of his?
I think Mike's review is honest to a fault. It would have been nice to see a bit more discussion of the book. I'm buying one regardless, just reviewing all-too-brief Ruppert review.
BTW, Carolyn Baker did a great job with her review. She's preaching the choir here, of course.
Dmitri, have you read Edward Goldsmith's "The Great U-turn: de-industrializing society"?
I stumbled across this piece in a dead-tree store yesterday, and every page in this well-researched and enlightening book reminds me of your ideas.
I like that Ruppert eschews the Cartesian approach. Truly we are dealing with something that is off the chart!
Post a Comment