Yet another misleading book of the absurd.
597163
This book was originally titled "The Magic of Incense, Oils & Brews".  That would have been a more honest title.  The reader can make his own judgements concerning the motives that prompted the name change.
This book has almost nothing useful to do with incense at all.  It is nothing more than a book of "spells" and other such ridiculous nonsense.  About the only thing of any use I got from it was an answer to why the incense I buy at Ren Faire have such idiotic names.
If you are looking for a book on making incense, without all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo, I'd suggest "Potpourri, Incense and Other Fragrant Concoctions" by Ann Tucker Fettner.  It's also a much cheaper book.
3120087
yet another book written by fanciful feminists dreaming of some (wholly imaginary) matriarchal past.  The book is full of wild unsubstantiated statements.  They talk about goddesses of the paeleolithic era, a period of which there is nothing known about religious practices or beliefs, how could there be?  The carved images of women found may be goddesses, or they may not.  We don't know.  That doesn't stop these nutty women laying down the law on the subject though.  All the authors of these batty feminist sprituality books should be made to write out the following a hundred times "WORSHIPPING GODDESSES DOES NOT MEAN A SOCIETY IS MATRIARCHAL" .History is full of partiarcahl goddess-worhsippers, Egyptian, Greek and Roman society were full of goddesses, and they were totally male-domonated societies.  And if Christianity was such a terrible male-domonated religion compared to all those lovely goddess worhsipping religions, how come they got so many women converts?  Alos they are banging on about moon goddesses as per usual, sun goddesses not getting a mention, though there were plenty.  And these women are meant to be psychologists or something, aren't they?  They both seem to me to be in urgent need of psychoanalysis themselves.
3846162
This outdated (1973) book is complete and utter nonsense. Its main contention is that economic growth would grind to a halt well before the year 2000 and that Western civilization would collapse. While it looks scientific and objective with all of its charts and graphs, its doomsday model predicted that soon, in the West, the death rate will rise abruptly from pollution and from lack of food. (p. 124, Universe Books edition, 1973) Obviously, no such collapse ever occurred.
(The other reviewers contention that the book came out just before the first oil crisis in 1973 conveniently fails to mention that the reason for the crisis was a shortage due to a unilateral, politically motivated boycott by OPEC and not any structural problem in the economies of the West.)
The reason for this hysterical propaganda can be easily drawn from its call to action. The authors were advocates of a world wide SOCIALIST state run by an elite group of statesmen, policy makers and scientists. (See pages 181-182).
F.A Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, argues brilliantly against such central planning schemes and demonstrates how the good intentions of the few (who think themselves morally and intellectually superior) can lead to the enslavement and poverty of the many. In order to implement a central plan, democratic processes must be suspended and dissenters must be silenced (a few eggs must be broken to make an omelet as the fascists say).
For any who doubt the folly of centrally planned economies, please review the catastrophes of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the Soviet block countries, Maos China, Cuba, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc.
501159
This "book" doesn't prove it's premise. The weight of the ox, proves nothing. Why does he even bring it up? The candy jar, as soon as the crowd is given a bit of information, they get it completely wrong. So were they smart or not? And what does it matter? Could he not find relevant real life examples?
Historical and current examples of crowd madness are disregarded completely. The only readable and informative part of the book is the story of the NASA Space Shuttle, and how the complete failure of crowd thought lead to the very sad consequences. Actually Surowiecki gives in this book more examples of failure of group thought than positives even when desperately and selectively trying the opposite, and the positives are mostly laughable and irrelevant like the ox or controversial or possibly random chance from noise (tell us about all those cases when a boat/submarine was not found!).

He mostly repeats the assertion that he has clearly shown it to be so, or that we know it to be so that groups are oh so wise, but the data, the arguments they are not there.

It's confirmation bias taken to the extreme, intellectual dishonesty, very thin in any actually relevant information.

Where would the world be without Socrates, Aristotle, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and others? Tell me. The sort of people he tries to downplay.

Le Bon's 1895 work on crowds (that Surowiecki tries to discredit) became a sort of prophecy of the 20th century. Mussolini is said to have read it every night. Hitler directly copied large parts of it into his Meinkampf. Le Bon tried to warn us about crowds, and he was proven to be right in a very concrete manner.

Surowiecki touches none of this, while being aware of it. This is dishonesty. You look at the societies on this planet. The more we value the individual achievement, individual freedom and the less there is group thougt, group pressure, you know those things that go together with crowds, the better off the society is generally.

In the end Surowiecki manages to put together the thought structure, that informed crowds, with specific expertise, diverse in opinion, giving individuals their say, co-operative, co-ordinated, listening to each other can produce "miracles". And I agree. Finding the cause of Sars so quickly is an example. And something to keep in mind.

But that is something entirely different from "wisdom of crowds". That is wisdom of co-operating highly skilled experts.

The fact that this book has been a sort of best seller, and has recieved so many 5 star reviews praising it's non-existant content, makes me go back to Mackay, Shermer, Le Bon...

I have never burnt a book in my life, but Surowiecki is seriously tempting me. I utterly hated this book and what it represents. Strong words, but saying it as it is.
1873030
This book (and volume no. 1) deserves no any star, however because the incredible lies it contains makes it get 1 star as an example for those who still are confused; to proof how many people can be trapped in this idiotic but genious fabricated disinformation.

It's amazing and incredible how easy people can be getting catched by this secret government "setup theories" with false mathematical and wrong explanations and incorrect applications of the so called mathematical laws herein. Just think for example about the spiral case drawings made by halfway circles instead of an projection of the exponential function characteristics.

People must think for themselves. If they don't check the so called refered mathematical "explanations" for themselves, or they accept anything because it looks "mathematical beautiful", be very aware. Thus, the population wants beautifully fabricated images instead of a written truth.

Be aware ! I do not say the aliens do not exist. I do not state the old civilizations and original ancient sciences named here are incorrect or never did exist. I don not deny the spiritual and paranormal phenomena.

I state the suggestions and conclusions in this book are fabricated by a writer who has an AGENDA that fits to get confused people starving for truth and knowledge in his "New Agey" web by a dirty way of spreading disinformation and false hints.

BTW: every serious researcher of spiritual stuff and conspiracies would already have to know, the so called writer of this book is a PATSY for the New World Order Agenda.

The name Melchizedek suggests some integrity, well he isn't !

Using this aftername or synonym is a hot spot signal for the better would-be critical reader.

I know a lot of readers will dislike my review. I know people first shoot the messenger before they get grounded and finally wake up. That's the way how life is all about.

Sorry guys, I don't have a more comfortable message which maybe fits in your "Flower Life" expectations or "End of Time" philosophy with the availability of more of the so called "vibrational dimensions" given by Drunvalo.
1114364
If you like bunches of disorganized newspaper clippings, unsupported assertions, and complete avoidance of a coherent thought or argument, this is the book for you.  If not, save your money and go elsewhere.

This writer reproduces the same hundreds of accounts of large skeletons seen in other collections, and (also like many of these other collections) doesn't put them in any order that makes any sense. He makes silly unsupported statements that should make anyone with even a bit of reasoning skills want to put the book down.  For example, In reference to one article that reports on some skeletons found but does not say how large they were, he insinuates that the lack of information on the size of the skeletons IN AND OF ITSELF is reason to suppose something was being covered up, because [paraphrase] "all archaeologists always report the height of the skeletons they find."  Another example is when he says that evolution shows us that species always go from large to small, not small to large.  What a bunch of nonsensical baloney.

He shows an uncredited photo that is labeled as an excavation at the Serpent Mound in Ohio. It shows a truly giant skeleton apparently at very shallow depth from rocky/sandy soil in the sun .  It sure doesn't look the Serpent Mound to me. Is this the Serpent Mound?  Really?  Come on. How dumb do you think your readers are?  How about a reference or a photo credit?

I see no evidence that any critical thinking or even significant preparation went into this book. To be honest, I stopped reading and started skimming pretty early in the book.  Bad.
1476307
Being a prophet and having prophetic visions is just plain silly not to mention unprovable, which is exactly what this author and the other authors in this book want. They are praying (no pun intended) off weak-minded people who will follow them wherever they go, loading up the their pockets with money only to be left with another "soon, believers!" from them. Using the Bible to decode the end times is like using the book Cinderella to decode the meaning of life out of Sleeping Beauty; it's researching a fairy tale to prove another fairy tale right or wrong. The sheer premise of what they want to achieve is flawed from the beginning. The end of times will not happen in any of our lifetimes or our children or even our children's children's children. The end times will happen in a couple billion years when the sun looses hydrogen and expands into a red giant, eventually overtaking our inner solar system. THAT is a fact. We can see it all over the observable universe. It has been tested, viewed, tested again, scrutinized and then scrutinized some more; it's the scientific method. Being ignorant to a beautiful, already fascinating world is such a shame. Do you really think that all the stuff described in the book will happen? Honestly? With the world being documented better than ever has anyone ever seen irrefutable proof of magic nowadays? The thought is truly ridiculous. Anything we don't understand is just science we haven't learned yet. Anyone who believes this belongs in the Dark Ages where people where afraid of crows and women with red hair. I got this book from family member trying to convert me to the Dark Side/Ignorant Side. Read the whole thing to be open mined. Pure crap. This book will only make your brain dumber, I promise. You can believe in a god and be smart, but this book is not the way.
2855941
This book should not be considered non-fiction.  My goodness, it is so much about Mr. Arnold's beliefs and not about facts that one wonders, why did I just pay $13 to hear this guy's warped opinion? It is written from an atheistic point of view which demonizes faith as close-minded thinking incapable of dissecting any truths. It's insulting to anyone of faith. Here is an example: "To be called either an atheist or agnostic means nothing, they are just words uttered by people who don't understand that there are those in the world who have never fallen under the spell of religion and are free to express their views." This implies that the rest of us who believe in God are under a spell and are not free thinkers.

It's not a surprise to me that Mr. Arnold is an atheist because he uses Scripture and organized religion interchangeably. Organized religion has clouded the views of Scripture and keeps many in the dark but that doesn't mean Scripture is flawed. It is not the Word that is false; it is the interpretations of it and the misuse of it that creates confusion. He mentioned the Rapture theory and that born-again Christian all believe they will magically fly out of here when tribulations come. Mr. Arnold has no trouble generalizing Christians into these categories of believers of wacky fables. While the rapture is not biblical, again, a misinterpretation of Scripture that doesn't mean the Word is flawed.

Further, some of the alien discussions are down-right laughable. Here an example: "The Nordic are a race that "some individuals have suggested" that because of their similar physical appearance to humans, they could possibly be our long, lost relatives who have since moved on to other planets." Say what? Now this sounds real factual doesn't it?  He goes on to describe them and states: "although they are humanoid and externally almost identical to humans, there are subtle differences in the Nordic alien physiology,...they have a larger lung capacity and have copper-based blood...some believe the Nordics are here to somehow watch over and help guide us into a new plane of existence..." Yikes, I've got to stop reading before I break a gut. Bahwahhhhaaa

This book is going in the trash...
4266092
Neillands, a prolific (yes, he wrote that silly book on The Bomber War) yet less than truthful "historian", is out to prove that his beloved Monty and fellow Tommies were just about the best fighting machine in Normandy, and that their performance have been badly underestimated.

His book is just as absurd as Ambrose's ones, their work being jingoistic nonsense drssed up as imparrtial research.
804897
Although I have read the book, let me start with the 1905 ad quoted above.  This is obviously nonsense.  The influence of this book has probably been much less than claimed, and to say that presidents read this in manuscript is ridiculous.  Now to the book.  This is based on Nietzsche, but the style is overblown and hysterical in a way that one never finds in Nietzsche.  It is certainly not watered down, however, to say the least.  The author essentially gets it right, but he screams it out instead of quietly trying to convince the reader.  As literature, this is nothing compared to the writings of the Scottish poet John Davidson (Mammon and His Message, etc.).  It is all barking and snarling.  I think that we are expected to believe that this book was published in 1896, but why then is there a reference at the very end to the Battle of Manila Bay in 1898?  In any case, the author seems never to have risen to the top of the heap, or anywhere near it.  If this philosophy did not work for him, how will it work for you?  When did he ever have any "might"?
533733
I have been marginally aware of G. K Chesterton, first through Robert W. Smith's works, and then later, discovering that a major character in the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman (Gilbert, aka Fiddler's Green) had been patterned after him. I have been reading a number of Infidels (Paine, Ingersoll, and Voltaire), and so am somewhat familiar w/this style of writing, and have somewhat become a fan of it.

 Unfortunately, when an author begins with attacking any rational and skeptical critic, insulting their intelligence, and inferring they are drooling idiots, then I am afraid my mind shuts down.  As Ingersoll observed, since the Church has been deprived of its instruments of torture, only one weapon is left, and that is slander (paraphrase). To call any skeptic illiterate, or accuse them of what is essentially brainlessness, is but a sugarcoated, sarcastic version of the ad hominem attack (and if the reader actually INVESTIGATES the writings of these skeptics, past and present, they will find that they are INDEED literate, and intelligent). He says this, this one about the early matriarchies: "matriarchy was simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remained fixed because all the fathers were fugitive and irresponsible." Who said this? Unknown. Sources cited? None. Moral Anarchy? I am not an advocate of political correctness, as I see it as subliminal censorship, but this coupled with his derisive trash about Asians, comparing Herodotus to a Chinaman, and saying the Asian is barely human (paraphrase)? And please, spare me the nonsense of societal antipathy. Bigot and sexist.  He goes on to attack the evolutionist, making fun of forensic science (but excuses for G.K: he had no idea how useful this is in reconstructing a human being in today's CSI labs). Again, the worst sort of Antinomianism, covered with flowery prose. Some of his imagery is wonderful; the conclusion was quite beautiful. But this errant nonsense about the 5 deaths of the Church? Please. As if the Spanish (or Germans) were abandoning their crosses during the French revolution. The Vatican was on the verge of closing its doors? And this idiocy about instinctive worship? Again, spare me. A child isolated, raised by wolves, NEVER starts praying: indeed, said child will behave as its environment dictates. His history is unsound; his psychology is simple egomania (this is how I would be, ergo, everyone else will be); he glosses over the glaring contradictions in the Bible with barely a blurb, simply dismissing them with a poetic hand, never addressing them; nor does he address the rivers of blood that wash up on the feet of Christ. The early church didn't survive simply because it was the best: it survived by crushing the opposition, and gaining a foothold in the Roman Empire via Constantine (who was, irony of ironies, an Arianist on his deathbed). And the wonderful rubbish of martyrdom: while there were those who died in the name of their Lord (RIP), the Christians only endured 12 years of actual persecution; the Romans were remarkably tolerant of other beliefs, and after Justin's martyrdom, an entire craze sprang up in the Christian community where members ACTUALLY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO GET MARTYRED. If C.S Lewis converted due to this long-winded, sophistic diatribe, then perhaps I shall skip reading anything by him. Words are but words, and rhetoric, however lofty and poetic, are not evidence of anything except that people will glorify the speaker if the words serve their best interest.

In conclusion: I have read many apologists, and thus far, they have failed the litmus test: that of logic.
2641782
Undoubtedly the author's intentions are altruistic, unfortunately I found this book to be one that I would throw into the garbage since I found most of it to be nonsense.  The first thing that made me uncomfortable was Fr. Dubay's ridiculous enchantment with the seeming (and absurdly archaic notion of) 'holiness' of Sts T and J.  He presents an anecdote of St. John's propensity to wear his belt so tightly as to cut into his skin as "gee whiz, this guy is so holy that he is willing to purposely cause himself suffering! ".  I mean come on, that is just downright stupid and potentially dangerous.

He presents a portrait of two people who have no human faults.  It is such a silly and backwards perspective.  There seems to be no recognition that the individuals were products of their very early century Catholic environment just as we cannot help being products of our own environment.

The list of nonsense goes on from there.  It is clear that he knows not of that which he speaks.

My review is harsh I concede.  Sorry but the the book was a nonsensical perspective of ''feel good" religious blather.  You too can be a saint if you just do what she did!  It belongs in the self-help section with the rest of the books that are actually no help at all.
2085056
To write a book about "Empathic Civilization" and not even mention Albert Schweitzer and his philosophy of Reverence for Life is absurd to say the least.  The book is well researched and reasonably written, but Rifkin is using Schweitzer's philosophy and observations without crediting him, just calling it a different name.  Shameful really, I wonder if anyone else has called him out on this blatant repackaging of a mans life work.  It's like writing a book all about Surrealism but calling it "Dream Art" and never mentioning Andr Breton or Dali even once!! Someone should check for plagiarism of Schweitzer, the concepts Rifkin mooched from him are so blatant. For those of you who don't know Albert Schweitzer I suggest you read his works, you'll see what I mean.  Even the title is very close to Schweitzers' "Philosophy of Civilization." The philosophy being Reverence for Life of course. The similarity is so ridiculously blatant it strains credulity.
4472143
I bought this book thinking it was dealing with the subject of logic and reasoning. What I found after completing a third of the book was it is nothing but far right political ignorance.  I am still hopeful  that the right can get over this rhetoric of everybody that needs help from a government program is lazy irresponsible and undeserving. How the hell does the author know these individual circumstances well enough to conclude his opinion?  This is the type of ignorance you would expect to read in the comment section of Breitbart news not in a book about of all things logic and reason. This book of ignorance is neither logical or reasonable. It is merely a waste of money.
816843
This book was a vast disappointment to read: it is old, rehashed, politically-correct falsehoods that the educated and informed portion of the human population has rejected for decades; some of the falsehoods have been debunked for at least three hundred years, and I found it very astonishing to see them repeated anew.

First off, the author falsely claims "intelligent design" is a young, new idea: it is not--- ID is at least 10,000 years old and very likely much, much older. For many thousands of years people have looked at parts of the world and believed those parts are too complex to have been the result of natural processes---- that some gods ("intelligent designers") must have had a hand in their "design." The author here in this book merely restates the false and very old "watchmaker" fallacy. This is old hat, and only a fool would accept such an "argument."

Secondly, the author confuses "Darwinism" (which is a Fundamentalist Christian religious belief) and evolution; he also deliberately confused the Fundamentalist Christian religious belief called "Darwinism" with evolutionary theory: all three things are vastly different and separate things. Unfortunately, the author appears to have done this deliberately because he wished to attack an imaginary belief ("Darwinism") instead of evolution and evolutionary theory: nobody defends "Darwinism," therefore it is easy to attack. It is much easier to attack a position nobody defends; the author knows darn well that he cannot successfully attack evolution and evolutionary theory.

Third, the author spent a great deal of time spewing his politically-correct nonsense under the absurd and false pretense that he is doing "science." The author is engaged in politics under the guise of "science," and I find it darn insulting that he actually believed his readers would be deceived. If the author wished to be politically incorrect he would have supported and defended evolution, evolutionary theory, and the other sciences... instead of telling politically-correct falsehoods about what he claims to believe is "Darwinism."

Forth, the author falsely insisted that "intelligent design" is not occult superstition: it is. Nearly 100% of ID's supporters are Fundamentalist Christians; there are a handful that appear to be merely in it for the money and political power they believe pandering to Creationists will provide them.

Fifth, the author would have the reader believe that a massive world-wide cabal of evil scientists are hiding THE TRVTH from the rest of the world, and that he is a courageous knight out to expose the conspirators. I suppose he wants to be considered a minor savior, which is darn sad.

Sixth, science is not something one votes on: the majority does not get to decide what is true and what is false. The author would have readers believe that a tiny minority of scientists are forcing their "beliefs" (that is, facts) upon the majority. Science does not work that way: six billion people could believe something, yet one lone person with the truth that shows that belief false will trump those six billion people (see, for example, Giordano Bruno, Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein).

All in all this was a very insulting and belittling book: it assumes the readers are too ignorant, too stupid, too disinformed and misinformed to know when they are being lied to. I highly recommend anyone interested in the subject should avoid this book.
3909172
Having enjoyed other books by this author--- where he excoriates the absurdities of Old Testament and New Testament--- I was actually saddened to read this lame apology for Islam and "The Prophet."  From the first pages of Koran Curious, Werleman backs off his previously witty and generally astute style of writing, offering the lame and craven mission of helping his readers "understand" the Koran and put Muhammad's life "in context."  Where are the fiery denunciations of religious delusion?  Where are the condemnations of the absurd "Religion of Peace" nonsense?  I'm afraid poor CJ has succumbed to the very real fear that a truly courageous book like "Why I am Not a Muslim" would bring out the ire of those offended by a cheeky and damning expose.  And, don't tell me that it is only the extremists who have hijacked this religion.  The mad and self serving rants of "The Last Prophet" (and his deluded followers)  are pure garbage, and can certainly be interpreted as hateful in many respects.  One of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse he ain't!  (Read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and Ayan Hirsi Ali).
2682477
This should be titled "The Useless Book Of Often Inaccurate Information".  If you do a quick Google search of some of the "facts" stated herein you'll find some of them anything but factual.

Squirrels can't get rabies?  Nope.  Any mammal can, according to the CDC.  Squirrels don't often contract it, but they could.

Mozart wrote "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" when he was five?  Nope.  When he was 25 he composed a number of variations on the already existing and very popular tune.

Attila the Hun was a dwarf?  Nope.  He was short, as many steppe horseman of his age werebut not a dwarf.

Kamuela Searle was killed on the set by an elephant during the filming of "Tarzan"?  Nope.  He had an accident, finished the film, went on to make one more film with Cecio B. DeMille, and then retired from acting.  He died of cancer three years later.

A can of Diet Coke will float and a can of regular Coke will sink?  Let me go to the fridge and try that in the sink.  Nope!  They both float!

The origin of the word "news" comes from newspapers stories taking stories from everywhere, North, East, West and Southand using the first letter of each direction to derive "news"?  Nope.  It's a totally false and bogus etymology.  "News" is plural of "new".  It was derived from the Middle English "newes", and parallels the German "neues" and the French "nouvelle".  This is probably the silliest thing I found in this book.

There is no such thing as a blue food, and even blueberries are purple?  Nope.  Arguably there is blue corn.  True or not he stole that line from comedian George Carlin.

There are true facts in the book (and facts can be either true or false), but without taking the time a person can't know what is fact and what is bogus.  I think it's safe to say that a significant percentage of the facts presented are bogus.  I get the impression the author just cruised the net for whatever he could find that was interesting and stuck into this book.  He didn't check for accuracy at all.

The problem I have with books like this is that people often cite such stuffno matter how silly.  I read books like this because I want to be entertained and illumined with truthnot B.S.

 It can't be trusted.  The only reason I finished it was I wanted to blast it apart in a review.  It's terrible.