I also often struggle to digest Arendt's very long and sometimes tangential sentences. I've found after reading a couple chapters that I'm starting to I also often struggle to digest Arendt's very long and sometimes tangential sentences. I've found after reading a couple chapters that I'm starting to get the rhythm of her writing.

Pdf zu word freeware deutsch book about a boy with autism javascript for dummies ebook free download diary of a wimpy kid do it yourself book inside black book value canada motorcycles what was roald dahl most popular book ap chemistry review book pdf shary an read my book hannah arendt le origini del totalitarismo. Explore Kendra Ball's board 'Dear Elizabeth' on Pinterest. See more ideas about Elizabeth bishop, Robert ri'chard and Writers.

I find myself intentionally glossing over the parenthetical clauses of her sentences at first, and then going back and reading them separately. My biggest advice would be don't try to read the whole book cover to cover. Read the parts that interest you most. It's divided into three sections, which as far as I can tell from skimming, stand on their own. I for example skipped ahead to the last book, which directly addresses my particular research interest at the moment, which is the rise of totalitarianism in society. 'Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life.'

Some have said this should be required reading to prepare ourselves to face the changing political climate armed with information, as we watch again the rise of nationalism, the rise of antisemitism, the rise to power of what could be a new demagogue: 'a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and us 'Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life.' Some have said this should be required reading to prepare ourselves to face the changing political climate armed with information, as we watch again the rise of nationalism, the rise of antisemitism, the rise to power of what could be a new demagogue: 'a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason.' We have every reason to be greatly worried. On February 17, 2017, Donald Trump called the news media 'the enemy of the American people' in a tweet. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will. This book could be said to be quite dated, having been first published in 1951, shortly after the end of WWII, and during the midst of Stalin's Soviet regime. This particular edition was updated in 1966, with a long introduction by the author detailing the many changes in the world at that time.

But of course so much more has happened since then: the breakup of the Soviet Union and rise to power of Putin in Russia, to name just two. So read this book for information on totalitarianism, its origins and its elements, and not so much for an up-to-date history lesson. Once again, as I frequently do with heavy material, I'm planning to read this in small doses, perhaps a chapter a day, to try to digest the information. Part One: Antisemitism with chapters entitled: An Outrage to Common Sense; The Jews, the Nation-State and the Birth of Antisemitism; and The Dreyfus Affair. Part Two: Imperialism with chapters entitled: The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie; Race-thinking Before Racism; Race and Bureaucracy; Continental Imperialism: The Pan-Movements; and the Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man.

Interesting quote: 'Expansion is everything,' said Cecil Rhodes, and fell into despair, for every night he saw overhead 'these stars.these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could.' ' 'Imperialism was born when the ruling class in capitalist production came up against national limitations to its economic expansion.' Part Three: Totalitarianism with chapters entitled A Classless Society; The Totalitarian Movement; and Totalitarianism in Power. This section was the reason I wanted to read this book in the first place, to understand what circumstances allow the rise of totalitarianism.

To understand the fascination exercised by Hitler: 'Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance of being believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgment, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but also presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how many times he has been demonstrably wrong.'

'.their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.' Arendt wrote this book just a few short years after WWII had ended. People were still in shock and there was a lot of disbelief surrounding what had gone on in the concentration camps: 'Nazis have always known that men determined to commit crimes will find it expedient to organize them on the vastest, most improbable scale. Not only because this renders all punishments provided by the legal system inadequate and absurd; but because the very immensity of the crimes guarantees that the murderers who proclaim their innocence with all manner of lies will be more readily believed than the victims who tell the truth.' 'Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western conceptions of life after death:' Hades: relatively mild forms of camps for getting undesirable elements out of the way--the forerunner of the Displaced Persons camps established after the war. Purgatory: chaotic forced labor camps such as utilized by the Soviets. Hell: perfected by the Nazis and organized for the greatest possible torment.

'All three types have one thing in common: the human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of any interest to anybody, as if they were already dead and some evil spirit gone mad were amusing himself by stopping them for a while between life and death before admitting them to eternal death.' Chilling, isn't it?

I would give this book 2 stars for ease of reading and 5 stars for importance. Hannah Arendt was obviously a brilliant scholar and her book is well worth the time it takes to read through all the historical background she provides. I may not have retained much but the details were endlessly fascinating. I would say that part three on totalitarianism could be read alone if one just wants more information on that. ***** Some Tips For The Reader To Be ***** Having just finished this monster of a book in just under three months (not sure if any book has taken me so long to finish, perhaps Infinite Jest might surpass?), I can safely say that I feel like I've just gone through ninety days of mental kick boxing with Arendt. As such, I've had plenty of time to conduct a criticism in my head that I feel adds to the already crammed Goodreads review page on here. It takes the form of three bits of advise, as I trul ***** Some Tips For The Reader To Be ***** Having just finished this monster of a book in just under three months (not sure if any book has taken me so long to finish, perhaps Infinite Jest might surpass?), I can safely say that I feel like I've just gone through ninety days of mental kick boxing with Arendt.

As such, I've had plenty of time to conduct a criticism in my head that I feel adds to the already crammed Goodreads review page on here. It takes the form of three bits of advise, as I truly believe ALL should read this book, but many may need some guidance from a fellow average joe (and not a History Major) who's reached the finish line. It goes as follows: 1.) Style. Unless you have experience in understanding the language of Political Science (or any complex subject), or you are very well read with in-depth politics, or you just so happen to be able to process complex ideas and writings from paper to brain in perfect unity, then you may find that the first 100 pages of this book will hit you like a clean round-house kick to the head. I found this text HARD to process (If you don't believe me, check the reader Q&A), and it's definitely the first non-fiction that I've really had to churn through. It took a good month of reading for me to fully get into gear with Arendt's writing style and what makes it so hard (at least for me) leads to my second point. 2.) What Arendt is setting out to inform the reader of.

It was only after having a minor freak out finishing part II of this book ( Imperialism) in a computer room late at night that I fully grasped what Arendt was attempting to convey to readers when forming this book. This book doesn't read as a series of historical events told in a traditionally chronological order, neither does it read as a study of the inner workings of the leaders of said movements.

Instead, The Origins of Totalitarianism reads like a slow motion dread-fest that builds as the reader learns about the collective thoughts of the population at the time. Arendt goes from informing us as readers about the various peoples of Europe and the hatred pumped into their consciousness which found a voice in anti-Semitism; Racism; the eventual Pan-Movements and finally exposing how Imperialism nurtured it all. All as the pre-requisites for what gave birth to the Nightmare Ideologies of Hitler and Stalin.

So what makes it different in it's explanation of these events? Simply put, Arendt attempts to show the reader the mind-set of the society at the time. Not of an individual, but of the subconscious, unquestioning attitude toward the world the elite and in power peoples of Europe (such as Britain and German) held, and how they ended up seeing reality in this warped, divorced way.

This is what makes for a difficult read. Arendt attempted to create a book that weaves human thought together when we are en masse (no easy feat), and display the mind-set of those who inhabited an Imperialistic world full of expansion and domination. I won't attempt to go into how she manages to actually make sense of the deliberately illogical, irrational and insane endgame society that came next (Hint: it begins with a T). But what follows is the bone chilling chronicling of how men became convinced they were servants to the never-changing, always forward moving cogs of history (as viewed through the eyes of imperialists). Everything is laid bare as the reader is guided and shown how the foundations for a society based on terror as it's core function, and an enemy always in need of extermination, was born. How the reader should tackle the book. Attack this book pro-actively.

I had a pen on me at all times, and I constantly marked passages that stood out and made notes in case I returned (I'm sure I will). Most importantly, be humble when reading this book and realise this is one of those texts that requires time and thought to read. Millions died in ways that, as Arendt would say: 'Saw the impossible made possible', thanks to this sickening ideology that made history explainable to those who couldn't understand their misery in one giant consumable pill labelled 'RACE' (in the case of Nazi Germany), and - in a terrifying twist of Marx's philosophy - 'CLASS' (in the case of Stalin's Russia) for the masses to swallow. It is the least we can do to mentally arm ourselves against this carcass of a thought-trail, and arm those around us also.

There's a reason I have this shelved under Horror, and when we're told that reading can change one's brain structure then I feel this book did exactly that. I won't see things in quite the same way. I feel I can sum this subject up in one final paragraph. Humans, being the organically grown creatures of mother earth that we are, are not separate from the laws of nature that all other creatures must obey. When we don't nourish our bodies physically; we catch a flu, or grow fat and weak from lack of exercise.

When we don't nourish our minds properly, or keep our mental health in check; we become melancholy, or depressed. The exact same can be said of societies (for what are societies if not humans expressing their desires and aims into a physical collective) I believe.

Totalitarianism is a modern societal disease. A sickness that appears from a collective that has had it's heart ripped out and its people left with no future prospect. A society that has failed to nourish itself with all the needs and basic requirements for humans to flourish will decay. It's the mutation of decayed Imperialism and modern Empire that gives birth to Death Camps and Gulags which, ultimately, if allowed to continue, would have seen the movement cannibalise it's population and destroy itself (see 'The German Health Bill' for what Hitler had planned for those who were ill or had a disability).

I believe previous societies have had their own version of this mutation when they have collapsed, but due to the manner of the modern world, nothing could have reflected a society's fall as horrifically as Totalitarianism, and no-one seems to have chronicalled it better than Hannah Arendt. I'd always assumed totalitarianism and dictatorship were the same thing.

I learned more about modern politics and power reading this masterpiece by Hannah Arendt than in the past 20 years of reading and studying. I was shocked to find that certain baffling features of contemporary political movements suddenly make perfect, terrifying sense when viewed from a totalitarian perspective. Some fun things I learned about totalitarian movements: -Totalitarian movements deny objective reality a I'd always assumed totalitarianism and dictatorship were the same thing. I learned more about modern politics and power reading this masterpiece by Hannah Arendt than in the past 20 years of reading and studying. I was shocked to find that certain baffling features of contemporary political movements suddenly make perfect, terrifying sense when viewed from a totalitarian perspective.

Some fun things I learned about totalitarian movements: -Totalitarian movements deny objective reality and deliberately enclose themselves and their populations in a self-manufactured world of ever-changing fictions. -Totalitarian movements are not pro-national movements.

A totalitarian movement's goal is ultimately to destroy the nation it inhabits. Similarly, totalitarianism doesn't use the law to control its population. (I'd always thought totalitarianism meant more and harsher laws) Totalitarian movements abandon all law and strive toward utter lawlessness. -In totalitarian movements, the power of the military becomes second to the power of intelligence agencies. -Totalitarian movements always aspire to global domination Good fun! Certainly in the running for the most disappointing book ever.

First, it's on all these lists of the greatest books ever, plus it's got a really high rating on goodreads. Plus i open it and the first few pages are breathtaking. Hannah is one killer sentencecrafter.

A vixen of prose. Some sentences 50+ words long but you only need to read them once because they are both precise and action-packed. And oh, the promise her intros seem to hold. Bold, sweeping strokes that wipe out long-held beliefs a certainly in the running for the most disappointing book ever.

First, it's on all these lists of the greatest books ever, plus it's got a really high rating on goodreads. Plus i open it and the first few pages are breathtaking. Hannah is one killer sentencecrafter. A vixen of prose.

Some sentences 50+ words long but you only need to read them once because they are both precise and action-packed. And oh, the promise her intros seem to hold.

Bold, sweeping strokes that wipe out long-held beliefs and foretell of new paradigms to come. The great human cataclysms of our times will be analysed and the true causes, forces at work through the centuries, laid bare. But the promise is completely unrealised. I read 200 pages closely, then skimmed through 100 more. It turns into an excrutiating brick of mass psychobabble.

'jews felt this way, so they acted this way, so others felt this way about them, so this made jews feel this way, so they did this.' 'imperialists had these intentions, so they tried to do this, but it made people feel this way, so the imperialists changed to this methodology in order to make people feel this way.'

Every group is a monolith which thinks and acts like an archetypal individual. Which, ok, is sometimes a necessary simplification in history, but the real killer is her EVIDENCE. Time and time and time again, her 'evidence' is a quote from another historian, or even a quote from a contemporary NOVEL. IF YOU WANT TO PROVE A THESIS ABOUT HISTORY, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT WITH HISTORY, NOT BY QUOTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF OTHERS. I came away pretty sure that she didn't have much of a head for figures or economics. Almost no numbers at all are quoted as evidence.

Even if i were convinced of her ideas, if i espoused them to someone who then challenged me to defend them, this book provides almost nothing i could use. But then of course what makes the whole thing even worse is that i don't think she's correct at all. There is one tiny speck of possibility. Hannah had obviously read thousands of books and essays and letters on the subject. I suppose it is possible that she assumed her audience would also be like her, so that she only needed to point at her sources, rather than reprise the events and people that are the subjects of history.

There are multiple footnotes on most pages and about 1000 items in the bibliography. If you want to learn how the world came to look like it does, don't read this. Read Tragedy and Hope, by carroll quigley. What does it take to create a Hitler or a Stalin? More importantly can it happen in the USA as it has in Putin’s Russia? Arendt is a very intelligent writer. She’s not afraid to assume her readers really want to know and never talks down to the reader.

The book was reprinted in the 1960s but mostly reflects her thoughts from 1950. There’s just something about a writer who assumes her readers have read Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, Kant, Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarian philosophy, and often quotes from Edm What does it take to create a Hitler or a Stalin? More importantly can it happen in the USA as it has in Putin’s Russia? Arendt is a very intelligent writer.

She’s not afraid to assume her readers really want to know and never talks down to the reader. The book was reprinted in the 1960s but mostly reflects her thoughts from 1950.

There’s just something about a writer who assumes her readers have read Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, Kant, Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarian philosophy, and often quotes from Edmund Burke, and all the while assumes the reader understands the context and the connections of what is being discussed. In order to create a totalitarian system the first thing required is to create hate of the other of some kind. She documents the madness of 19th century Europe (and South Africa) and its peculiar blaming of the Jews and the stateless for its ills, the Dreyfus Affair in all of its details and the chaos after the First World War and then the book starts to get into its groove as she starts to consider the special characteristics inherent within Hitler and Stalin the two totalitarians under consideration which resulted from that madness, the first race inspired, the second class inspired.

The common ingredients necessary for totalitarianism to take hold were along these lines, create a fear stemming from a difference and use the threat of terror to appeal to baser instincts of the mobs (winning the hearts of at least 48% of the people is just enough to win in an Electoral College, for example). A Hitler quote from the book went something along these lines ‘everything I am I owe to you the people of Germany, and who you are is owed to me’. It would be similar as if somebody said ‘only I can fix the problems that you have and nobody else knows how to do that except for me’. To create totalitarianism, undermine science and knowledge by appealing to dogma instead of reason and create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) by challenging all narratives contrary to the leader’s whim for that day and act as if they were coming from a fake media or pointing out there are alternative facts. Consistency and coherence are not necessary within their narratives for them to be successful only what the leader has recently said matters, because after you insult your opponent by calling them names (such as ‘Pocahontas’) the mob will cheer you on in order to see blood as if they were sharks swimming in the water between feedings. Keeping people afraid and hateful from any group or person who threatens them in their fevered imaginations and who are not part of their self selected group defined by their ethos.

It doesn’t matter if they are to be made afraid of Muslims, Mexicans or immigrants. The most important consideration is that the masses must be irrational in their fear, but have the feeling that something wicked this way comes and only one person can save them from that future (but unknown) travesty. The author will say that totalitarian merges the law into the ethos of the people manipulated by the leader such that to disagree with the law and the hate that proceeds from the created ethos would be tantamount to being anti-patriotic and not part of the spirit of the country as such nor would they be deemed worthy of protection by the rule of justice. The leader, for example, could lead a chant of ‘lock her up’ before any indictment has been made and recommend a death penalty before a trial especially in acts of terror when committed by the bogeyman group of the day in order to instill fear induced by terror of the unknown to come, because fear of terror can never be relaxed since the totalitarian has convinced the mob only he knows how to fix the problem which he has created to be an existential threat within the minds of the mob and the leader but not in reality.

I would say, in addition for totalitarianism to win out the people must first stop learning. They must allow their leaders to think for them, and no matter how absurd the assertion is and void of science for totalitarianism to take hold the people must be willing to accept statements such as ‘Climate Change is a Chinese Hoax’ or ‘vaccines cause autism’ as truth because their leaders, and their insular news sources trapped within an epistemic closure tell them such. (Can’t they just read ‘Scientific American’?). Rush Limbaugh routinely tells his listeners that they do not need to read the ‘fake news’ and they can count on him instead. It’s a free country and any one can pick who they want to listen to or what they believe, but I sincerely suggest they be willing to learn from other sources then what their leaders have sanctify with their imprimaturs.

Every time I hear a 9/11 truther, or a climate denier, or a vaccine denier, or somebody who ignores the Mueller investigation about Russian influence within American politics because Hillary did something ‘nasty’ and is the real criminal which only makes sense in their fevered imaginations I cringe, because I know they are part of the totalitarian vanguard. Russia is not our friend and they are a threat to democracy. Education and science are the best defense against ignorance based fear and as Kant said, ‘the problem with the ignorant is they do not know they are ignorant’ at least the ignorant can learn. The stupid will always remain stupid.

Arendt had an interesting take on the ‘autonomy of chess’. Within a group of people there will be some people who like something for its own sake such as the game of chess just for the sake of chess itself (St.

Aquinas makes only God (i.e., the ultimate Good) and the conscience of the individual as causes of themselves). Himmler, when he came to power was not going to allow that. He was not going to allow a farmer to be a farmer just for the sake of farming. He was going to insist that everything had to serve the nation in the end since the nation itself with its totalitarian leader was to serve as the ultimate good for all within the nation. All of his SS guards were never to be SS agents just for their own sake.

The good of the nation meant the good of the leader and that was what mattered most in that symbiotic relationship. The capitalist and expansionist highlighted in the first part of the book similarly, the author will say, just wanted to make money or expand for its own sake, its own cause. Leaders of totalitarian states are not necessarily ideologically driven, but often want authoritarian power for its own sake and are using the people only as useful idiots in order to enhance what they think of as their ultimate good. It is vital that we study history. Otherwise we can be doomed to repeat it. This book gives a recursive view of history since it is a look back at a history as seen by a very intelligent writer in 1950 about a history that immediately came before that time period, and the reader gets both a history of the time period and a snapshot of what was believed in 1950. We’ve learned a whole lot more about Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia since this book was first published, but in spite of what we know today that she didn’t know then this book made for an intelligent telling of an interesting period of time.

Our understanding of history takes many drafts with rewrites before we think we get it right or at least good enough to think we did, and this book represented one of the best of the early drafts. Arendt, Hannah. THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. Arendt was a well-known intellectual and teacher of political philosophy, and wrote several key books and papers expressing her views and analysis of, among other things, Nazi Germany. In this book – the seminal work on it’s topic – she created an instant classic and a definitive study of this political movement.

The book is divided into three main parts: Antisemitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. Her thesis, ultimately, is that Arendt, Hannah.

THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. Arendt was a well-known intellectual and teacher of political philosophy, and wrote several key books and papers expressing her views and analysis of, among other things, Nazi Germany. In this book – the seminal work on it’s topic – she created an instant classic and a definitive study of this political movement. The book is divided into three main parts: Antisemitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism.

Her thesis, ultimately, is that the Nazi rise to power and its subsequent massacre of the Jews was the result of how Jews were perceived in Europe, beginning in the mid-1800s. Her thesis rests on the facts that Jews were a stateless people, having no country of their own and not belonging to the state in which they dwelt. They served a purpose, early on, of financing the needs of the royalty of the various countries in which they lived prior to the creation of the concept of the state – after which they became superfluous.

They then became the object of hatred after that because they had wealth, without power, and that wealth without use. They were stuck between being parvenues and pariahs. She manages to provide an excellent in-depth study of both Dreyfus and Disraeli to support her thesis – looking at both with a critical eye.

Although her main focus later in the book is the totalitarian regime that sprang up in Germany, she also covers the same types of regimes that led up to Stalin – although Stalin was not as selective as Hitler in his purges. This is not an easy book to read. You have to pay attention to what the author is really saying and listen closely to her conclusions.

Don’t take this one to the beach or on an airplane. Her views on Anti-Semitism are mostly what my grandfather would have called 'German Jewish thinking' and whenever she writes about America or Africa, it's frankly embarrassing. But when she's talking about European pre-war politics, she's absolutely on point. She has great insight into the basic human impulses at the heart of the great evils of the 20th century, insights which I found useful even when thinking about the Tea Party Movement. I found myself nostalgic (a blessedly rare mode for me) Her views on Anti-Semitism are mostly what my grandfather would have called 'German Jewish thinking' and whenever she writes about America or Africa, it's frankly embarrassing. But when she's talking about European pre-war politics, she's absolutely on point. She has great insight into the basic human impulses at the heart of the great evils of the 20th century, insights which I found useful even when thinking about the Tea Party Movement.

I found myself nostalgic (a blessedly rare mode for me) for the days when Arendt was a notable public intellectual: this book is written clearly and mostly free of jargon, but still strongly argued and well researched. Today, by contrast, we have Thomas Friedman. It also helps that she's a remarkable writer. The portions on statelessness, life in the camps and human loneliness are as about as moving as political thought gets. So I think it's pretty obvious why I read this, and pretty obvious why I had my first queue for a book older than a few years old: people are freaked, they are nervous, they want answers and our other institutions have utterly failed us, forget preparing us for any of what we should be expecting. Arendt spends a lot of time tracing the origins of anti-Semitism, which seems appropriate except that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of connecting that to the rise of Nazism.

Overall this book was So I think it's pretty obvious why I read this, and pretty obvious why I had my first queue for a book older than a few years old: people are freaked, they are nervous, they want answers and our other institutions have utterly failed us, forget preparing us for any of what we should be expecting. Arendt spends a lot of time tracing the origins of anti-Semitism, which seems appropriate except that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of connecting that to the rise of Nazism. Overall this book was a bit too long and a bit too academic to really grip me, but there were eerie parallels to our present situation that would grab my attention: On today's complaisant GOP: The attraction which the totalitarian movements exert on the elite, so long as and wherever they have not seized power, has been perplexing because the patently vulgar and arbitrary, positive doctrines of totalitarianism are more conspicuous to the outsider and mere observer than the general mood which pervades the pretotalitarian atmosphere. These doctrines were so much at variance with generally accepted intellectual, cultural, and moral standards that one could conclude that only an inherent fundamental shortcoming of character in the intellectual... Or a perverse self-hatred of the spirit, accounted for the delight with which the elite accepted the 'ideas' of the mob.... What the spokesmen of humanism and liberalism usually overlook, in their bitter disappointment and their unfamiliarity with the more general experiences of the time is that an atmosphere in which all traditional values and propositions had evaporated...

In a sense made it easier to accept patently absurd propositions than the old truths which had become pious banalities.... This is essential reading for 2017, no question about it.

Arendt is sharp, well researched and cutting in her assessment of the links between Antisemitism, Imperialism and Totalitarianism. This is not just an analyses of the Third Reich but also of the whole system of Russian Totalitarianism. Again just impressive how industry is linked in authoritarian regime, how extermination or prison camps are justified. In another section she mentions how Hitler's talent as a mass orator only made his oppo This is essential reading for 2017, no question about it. Gorillaz Rare.

Arendt is sharp, well researched and cutting in her assessment of the links between Antisemitism, Imperialism and Totalitarianism. This is not just an analyses of the Third Reich but also of the whole system of Russian Totalitarianism.

Again just impressive how industry is linked in authoritarian regime, how extermination or prison camps are justified. In another section she mentions how Hitler's talent as a mass orator only made his opponents underestimate him, and how Stalin defeated a great orator to lead his party.

It draws many things into focus and crafts a dangerous precedent in the era of Bannon and 'so-called' president Trump. I know this book (now that I have finally read it) to be, sincerely, a monumentally important non-fiction work of the 20th Century. First, her writing style: She came to English late in life. Her native tongue was German and she learned to write philosophy under the tutelage of Heidegger. She also was fluent in Greek and Latin, then French, and only English when she emigrated to the U. Here sentences have the Germanic richness; long, organic, fluid, full, meandering sentences that ca I know this book (now that I have finally read it) to be, sincerely, a monumentally important non-fiction work of the 20th Century.

First, her writing style: She came to English late in life. Her native tongue was German and she learned to write philosophy under the tutelage of Heidegger.

She also was fluent in Greek and Latin, then French, and only English when she emigrated to the U. Here sentences have the Germanic richness; long, organic, fluid, full, meandering sentences that carry the verb at the finish carried in deep-laden paragraphs. Getting used to her writing style may take American readers--who are used to the Executive Summary mode of quick topic and bullet-points punctuating the message--some getting used to reading. Reading her sentences may give a sore neck in the same way that looking up at the stained-glass windows in a cathedral may.

Next, her message: Originally, she wanted to call her book the Three Pillars of Hell but her publisher attached the current title. The three pillars are Anti-Semitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism, and she builds from one section to the other in a foundation-building manner. As powerful as the final Totalitarian section is, however, I highly recommend staying with it from the beginning and reading it through front to back. Last, I found the final section to be a jaw-dropping educational experience. The chapter with the strongest impact on me was 'Totalitarianism in Operation' but the Epilogue chapter, 'Ideology and Terror: A New Form of Government' has enormous value today.

When the book first appeared in 1951, it became a Cold War manual on dealing with the new Iron Curtain. In the 1970s, readership had shifted largely on statements Arendt had made in lectures and in the press that challenged the status quo of that generation. By 2000, scholarship has revived around it and it now, for me, it works as a text where the analysis is spot on in distinguishing how Totalitarianism appeared and what its distinguishing characteristics are. I underlined my copy thoroughly and will be referring back to it over and over.

Another book I feel somewhat impotent to review, this time because it is almost too powerful and too real. So many of Arendt's observations and analyses ring true to what I see today that I found myself tearing up multiple times (and this is not supposed to be an emotional book!). Her careful, detailed account of how two violently totalitarian regimes were able to come to power and flourish for a bit in the 20th century is valuable for those who do not want to be doomed to repeat history, and th Another book I feel somewhat impotent to review, this time because it is almost too powerful and too real. So many of Arendt's observations and analyses ring true to what I see today that I found myself tearing up multiple times (and this is not supposed to be an emotional book!). Her careful, detailed account of how two violently totalitarian regimes were able to come to power and flourish for a bit in the 20th century is valuable for those who do not want to be doomed to repeat history, and that, coupled with the quality of her research, analyses, and writing, gives this book an unshakable place on my 'required reading for all' list. I keep coming back to Arendt's descriptions of the mental states required for an acceptance of totalitarianism, at all levels of power. Not only were folks all-too-willing to follow strong leadership (Milgram experiments show this is not unique to Germany and Russia), but the refusal-that-leads-to-the-inability to distinguish truth from fiction permitted much evil, and that refusal/inability, sadly, seems to be a defining characteristic of humans in the Western world in this past and ongoing century.

It is certainly what concerns me most about our own time, with consequences Arendt makes horrifyingly clear. If I had a criticism about the book, it is that when comparing the inhumanity of the Holocaust with the inhumanity of slavery, Arendt seemed somewhat dismissive about the horrors of slavery.

Her compare/contrast came across a bit 'slavery was awful, but it wasn't THIS kind of awful.' It was a bit disturbing, and certainly unsettling.

However, I have to mention that I tend to assume qualitative overtones in analyses that are only trying to clarify quantitative differences, so perhaps my criticism has more to do with how I read than what Arendt said. A second reading will help me decide on my own. Seriously, read this book. It is insightful, powerful, tragic, and incredibly relevant, and I have a feeling it will continue to be relevant for many years to come.

Apparently I am too stupid to understand Totalitarianism, especially this bore fest. Which is scary considering I probably wouldn't have a clue if I was living in a Totalitarian system or not.whatever. I want a burger. Burger pizza? Anyways, I started reading the first few chapters and could not believe how mind numbingly boring and academic it is. I would much rather live under a Totalitarian regime than having to read another chapter of this. That's how bored I am!

Give me the Gul Apparently I am too stupid to understand Totalitarianism, especially this bore fest. Which is scary considering I probably wouldn't have a clue if I was living in a Totalitarian system or not.whatever. I want a burger. Burger pizza?

Anyways, I started reading the first few chapters and could not believe how mind numbingly boring and academic it is. I would much rather live under a Totalitarian regime than having to read another chapter of this.

That's how bored I am! Give me the Gulag, please!

For the love of God! I jumped to juicier sounding parts like 'The Masses', 'Total Domination' and other chapters that sound like heavy metal bands originating in 1983. I thought these chapters would yield something reminiscent of great classics such as 1984, Brave New World, or The True Believer. Nothing.I really liked other Arendt stuff (that is why I am so patient with it so far), but I am thinking of starting a totalitarian book burning movement due to my lack of enthusiasm for this book. I will continue to jump around, but nothing seems to strike my interest.

I think she is too intellectual for me and feel this book could be reduced to two sentences: Totalitarian is shitty and Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia consisted of a bunch of dickheads. America is the best and freedom is awesome! That would have done it for me. I would have gotten the point.

I will keep you posted on 'Totalitarianism' and its so called 'origins' as if this stuff is as easy to predict by reading a shitty book. God, I would rather be subjected to totalitarian propaganda than go on anymore!! OK, ok, you get the point. My metaphors, similes, or whatever they are called are growing redundant and so is this review. I will continue to read it for the good of the people. You're welcome, America.

Quotes: p.3 '.the fact is that modern antisemitism grew in proportion as traditional nationalism declined.' P.5 'Only wealth without power or aloofness without a policy are felt to be parasitical, useless, revolting, because such conditions cut all the threads which tie men together.'

P.311 'It was characteristic of the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany and of the Communist movements in Europe after 1930 that they recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was the majority of their membership consisted people who never before had appeared on the political scene.'

P.317 'Hitler's early party, almost exclusively composed of misfits, failures, and adventurers, indeed represented the 'armed bohemians' who were only the reverse side of bourgeois society and whom, consequently, the German bourgeoisie should have been able to use successfully for its own purposes.' P.330 'No single element in this general intellectual climate in postwar Europe was very new, Bakunin had already confessed, 'I do not want to be I, I want to be We,' and Nechayev had preached the evangel of the 'doomed man' with 'no personal interests, no affairs, no sentiments, attachments, property, not even a name of his own.' The antihumanist, antiliberal, antiindividualist, and anticultural instincts of the front generation, their brilliant and witty praise of violence, power, and cruelty, was preced by the awkward and pompous 'scientific' proofs of the imperialist elite that a struggle of all against all is the law of the universe, that expansion is a psychological necessity before it is a political device, and that man has to behave by such universal laws. What was new in the writings of the front generation was their high literary standard and great depth of passion.' P.337 'It is not fortuitous, then, that the few protests against the Nazis' mass atrocities against the Jews and Eastern European peoples were voiced not by the military men nor by any other part of the co-ordinated masses of respectable philistines, but precisely by those early comrades of Hitler who were typical representatives of the mob. Nor was Himmler, the most powerful man in Germany after 1936, one of those 'armed bohemians' whose features were distressingly similar to those of the intellectual elite. Himmler was himself 'more normal,' that is, more of a philistine, than any of the original leaders of the Nazi movement.

He was not a bohemian like Goebbels, or a sex criminal like Streicher, or a crackpot like Rosenberg, or a fanatic like Hitler, or an adventurer like Goring. He proved his supreme ability for organizing the masses into total domination by assuming that most people are neither bohemians, fanatics, adventurers, sex maniacs, crackpots, nor socials failures, but first and foremost job holders and good family men.' P.338 'After a few years of power and systematic co-ordination, the Nazis could rightly announce: 'The only person who is still a private individual in Germany is somebody who is asleep.'

P.346 'Totalitarian propaganda raised ideological scientifically and its technique of making statements in the form of predictions to a height of efficiency of method and absurdity of content because, demagogically speaking, there is hardly a better way to avoid discussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future can reveal its merits. However, totalitarian ideologies did not invent this propaganda, and were not the only ones to use it.

Scientifically, of mass propaganda has indeed been so universally employed in modern politics that it has been interpreted as a more general sign of that obsession with science which has characterized the Western world since the rise of mathematics and physics in the sixteenth century; thus totalitarianism appears to be only the last stage in a process during which 'science has become an idol that will magically cure the evils of existence and transform the nature of man. And there was, indeed, an early connection between scientifically and the rise of the masses.

The 'collectivism' of masses was welcomed by those who hoped for the appearance of 'natural laws of historical development' which would eliminate the unpredictability of the individual's actions and behavior. There has been cited the example of Enfantin who could already 'see the time approaching when 'art of moving the masses' will be so perfectly developed that the painter, the musician, and the poet will possess the power to please and to move with the same certainty as the mathematician solves a geometrical problem or the chemist analyses any substance,' and it has been concluded that modern propaganda was born then and there.' P.382 'A mixture of gullibility and cynicism had been an outstanding characteristic of mob mentality before it became an everyday phenomenon of masses.' This wasn't what I'd hoped it would be, but I think the fault was probably my expectations rather than the book itself.

I'm not much for philosophy; I much prefer history. I was hoping for a thorough, fact-driven analysis of the various totalitarian regimes throughout history, determining key characteristics and similarities.

Instead, it's a philosophical treatise on Arendt's view of how the Jews became the scapegoats and how Nazi Germany gained power. Fully one-third of the book is taken up wit This wasn't what I'd hoped it would be, but I think the fault was probably my expectations rather than the book itself.

I'm not much for philosophy; I much prefer history. I was hoping for a thorough, fact-driven analysis of the various totalitarian regimes throughout history, determining key characteristics and similarities.

Instead, it's a philosophical treatise on Arendt's view of how the Jews became the scapegoats and how Nazi Germany gained power. Fully one-third of the book is taken up with Arendt's analysis of the rise of antisemitism in Europe. The rest involves grandiose oft-repeated axioms based entirely on Nazi Germany.

It talks about the importance of a key central figure and an isolating ideology that includes a sense of exceptionalism, etc, etc, but I can't say I feel much more enlightened now that I've finally (finally!) finished it. And maybe there's a stylistic thing, too-- to me, it felt like her grand assertions were stated over and over, and despite the book's length, there was precious little hard evidence to back them up. The most intriguing part of the story isn't even told in this book: for all of her stony detachment when talking about antisemitism and Hitler and the rise of the Nazis, Arendt was herself a German Jew who escaped to America. I think I would have found her philosophizing far more powerful if she'd allowed a bit of the human element to seep through. All in all, while I'm relieved to have finished it, I'm glad I picked it up in the first place. While I found it a dry read, it was still an interesting one, such as her comparison of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and her assertion that autocratic regimes seek to repress opposition while the core goal of totalitarian regimes is domination and control.

While it wasn't a great fit for me, I'm sure it's a phenomenal book if you're a fan of philosophy and have an attention span that's a mile longer than mine. I had mixed feelings here. I learned things from the book -- it has a number of insights that strike me as interesting and important -- but I'm worried I also learned a lot that isn't true.

Disclaimer: I skipped through most of the first two parts ('Anti-semitism' and 'Imperialism'), to get to the part I was really interested in, 'Totalitarianism'. I had expected this to be a work of analytic history, chronicling the rise and operation of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This is prim I had mixed feelings here. I learned things from the book -- it has a number of insights that strike me as interesting and important -- but I'm worried I also learned a lot that isn't true. Disclaimer: I skipped through most of the first two parts ('Anti-semitism' and 'Imperialism'), to get to the part I was really interested in, 'Totalitarianism'. I had expected this to be a work of analytic history, chronicling the rise and operation of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

This is primarily a theoretical work, with long discussions about the place of Man in Society, backed by historical references chosen to be illustrative. Arendt claims that the totalitarian states (Germany and the USSR) were fundamentally alike in some ways, and moreover that they had deep fundamental differences with all previous tyrannies.

She bases this claim partly on an analysis of how the regimes operated, but mostly on a close reading of the statements made by their leadership. However, she does not claim that these sources come from any sort of organized sampling. Rather, Arendt is picking the quotes that support her view. This means Arendt can cherry pick with impunity and that the reader should be on guard against her making sweeping generalizations that aren't really true. In some cases, she makes claims that seem plainly wrong. She claims that totalitarianism can only operate in a very large state, such as Russia or Germany at its peak expansion. This seems to have been falsified by the examples of Saddam's Iraq, revolutionary Iran, and above all, North Korea.

And that fact that this testable prediction of hers turned out to be wrong makes me wonder if there's a lot else the matter with her analysis. This doesn't map neatly to any contemporary ideology, so I suspect that most will find something to object to in it. Nonetheless, it is a great work of political philosophy that I recommend highly.

One of her major points towards the end was that while totalitarian states and movement have no inherent ideology, they usually take an available one to ride to power, in the case of the Nazis, racism, and in the case of the Soviets, class struggle. She talks about how all ideologies have the potential This doesn't map neatly to any contemporary ideology, so I suspect that most will find something to object to in it. Nonetheless, it is a great work of political philosophy that I recommend highly.

One of her major points towards the end was that while totalitarian states and movement have no inherent ideology, they usually take an available one to ride to power, in the case of the Nazis, racism, and in the case of the Soviets, class struggle. She talks about how all ideologies have the potential to be used by a totalitarian regime, because they posit a secret knowledge as a lens through which everything else is viewed, and contradictory facts are ignored or explained away.

Having read Leviathan for the first time last year, I found her discussion of Hobbes fascinating. She talked about the way his philosophy paved the way for Imperialism by convincing the bourgeoisie/middle class that continual expansion was not just an economic model (IE capitalism), it also pertained to nation states. I need to reread and mull this section over.

I found her discussion of concentration camps less convincing, though if I read more holocaust survivor literature, that could change. Finally, her discussion of how totalitarian movements dehumanize/deindiviualize people in order to make atrocities more palatable was stunning. On the one hand bureaucracy removes people from their conceptions of themselves and is dangerous in itself. Even more pertinent to the current political landscape is the way that statelessness can put people in a space where it is easier to deny them their full status as humans. It's 500 dense pages, but it is well worth the effort. It has taken me 9 months to finish this book. I am glad it took me so long because reading this should absolutely under no circumstance be an effort of racing your own self on its pages.

This is a difficult book, both in its choice of subject and in its writing. In it, history, politics, economy, psychology and many other themes are discussed and analyzed, in order to attempt a description of the two main totalitary regimes of Europe in the 20th Century, nazism and communism.

It is peppered with It has taken me 9 months to finish this book. I am glad it took me so long because reading this should absolutely under no circumstance be an effort of racing your own self on its pages. This is a difficult book, both in its choice of subject and in its writing. In it, history, politics, economy, psychology and many other themes are discussed and analyzed, in order to attempt a description of the two main totalitary regimes of Europe in the 20th Century, nazism and communism.

It is peppered with both facts and speculations (not the bad kind, though). Arendt both respects and disects the perpetrators and the victims.

She manages to be both objectively far away and subjectively close enough to never lose sight of the fact that this is a history book about horror and hell. I very simply enjoyed each page of this book, even when it was tedious: her tone is never condescending, her knowledge never dropped from a place higher than you, her sentences flow logically and are written clearly. In terms of literary critique, I have no feeling but admiration for Hannah Arendt as an author, as I do in personal terms for her as a woman, as a human being. I personally aspire to be even half as eloquent as her, and hope to be even a quarter as capable of deep, meaningful analysis in my life.

This work will take time to read, it will take energy and it will take a lot of patience to truly understand what it is laying out in front of you. However, I can safely say that, up to this point in my historical readings on the subject, this is by far the best one out there. So far, I'm finding this interesting, though it suffers from many of the same defects that philosophers encounter when writing about history. For example, relying on portrayals in novels is not evidence.

Not about popular history, not about the 'zeitgeist' whatever that is. It's things like that that make me nervous that the conclusions based on these weak propositions are false. Also, there is a powerful dose of Marxist philosophy of history here, which I don't reject because it's Marxist, but So far, I'm finding this interesting, though it suffers from many of the same defects that philosophers encounter when writing about history. For example, relying on portrayals in novels is not evidence. Not about popular history, not about the 'zeitgeist' whatever that is.

It's things like that that make me nervous that the conclusions based on these weak propositions are false. Also, there is a powerful dose of Marxist philosophy of history here, which I don't reject because it's Marxist, but because it doesn't explain anything. For example, the nation-state is the 'inevitable' consequence of the philosophical precept of 'equality' and imperialism is its natural destructor? I don't think this kind of thinking gives enough credit to the power of cognitive difference or apathy. Furthermore, I have a hard time crediting the idea that 'race-thinking' originated in late-17th century France.

Purity of blood laws and so forth originated in Spain, much, much earlier and race-thinking was a part of the Spanish and British Empires in the 'New World' long before French nobility wanted to racially distinguish themselves from the underclasses. I'll reserve judgment on the final thesis of the book until I'm done reading it, but if that thesis is that totalitarianism is a kind of positive feedback loop of purity demands regardless of truth, I'll accept that; if the thesis is that the unique conditions of that existed in a certain time in history, it will be hard to convince me on any basis other than techcological issues. This book was (first) published in 1951, written by a BRILLIANT thinker (who happens to have been a woman) who spanned the 20th century (1906-1975), and covers THE essential topic of that century: the origin of national and international horrors and the political systems/ideas that supported such untoward horror. Thus far the 21st century is inheriting this way of politics.

This book (amazingly and really) answers so many questions that it is mind-boggling at the sheer number of insights and the this book was (first) published in 1951, written by a BRILLIANT thinker (who happens to have been a woman) who spanned the 20th century (1906-1975), and covers THE essential topic of that century: the origin of national and international horrors and the political systems/ideas that supported such untoward horror. Thus far the 21st century is inheriting this way of politics.

This book (amazingly and really) answers so many questions that it is mind-boggling at the sheer number of insights and the strength of the author's reasoning powers. She does the work for us. But our work is large enough: this book will be a serious study for me. I have answers now that i never thought i would be able to gather. And this book does it all. It is NOT that this book 'does the thinking for me'.

Far far from that!! What it does do is trace the sources of the 'hunh?! How could THAT happen?! How CAN people think that way? Act that way?!' So i highly recommend this book but only if you want to sort through your own thinking and stand on clear solid ground as to the source of horrors that occurred in the 20th century and that, thus far, seems to be carrying itself forward into this century.

Let's give our children something better! The information in this book will aid being an informed voting citizen.

A crucial work for understanding the specific workings of the totalitarian regimes of the early twentieth century, especially given the still fairly unique conceptual frameworks and distinctions she uses. Install Vmlite Xp Mode Plugin Needed on this page. That said, Arendt's conceptualization is often a little too limited, and the distinctions she makes are too rigid to be fully applicable. While those distinctions serve to bring some specific aspects to the fore, such as the unique role terror plays within totalitarianism, they also obscure rel A crucial work for understanding the specific workings of the totalitarian regimes of the early twentieth century, especially given the still fairly unique conceptual frameworks and distinctions she uses. That said, Arendt's conceptualization is often a little too limited, and the distinctions she makes are too rigid to be fully applicable. While those distinctions serve to bring some specific aspects to the fore, such as the unique role terror plays within totalitarianism, they also obscure relevant continuities and similarities. In addition, Arendt bases a lot of her analysis in the second section on an essentialist and, frankly, racist view of indigenous African people and political structures.

That comparison prevents her from seeing some continuities, and throws into question the distinctions between colonialism and imperialism, racism and race thinking, and authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Reading alongside this work illuminates a lot of those shortcomings. Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century.

Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975.

She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action).

In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging). “In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.” —.

Few thinkers have addressed the political horrors and ethical complexities of the twentieth century with the insight and passionate intellectual integrity of Hannah Arendt. She was irresistible drawn to the activity of understanding, in an effort to endow historic, political, and cultural events with meaning. Essays in Understanding assembles many of Arendt’s writings from the 1930s, 1940s, and into the 1950s. Included here are illuminating discussions of St.

Augustine, existentialism, Kafka, and Kierkegaard: relatively early examinations of Nazism, responsibility and guilt, and the place of religion in the modern world: and her later investigations into the nature of totalitarianism that Arendt set down after The Origins of Totalitarianism was published in 1951. The body of work gathered in this volume gives us a remarkable portrait of Arendt’s developments as a thinker—and confirms why her ideas and judgments remain as provocative and seminal today as they were when she first set them down. From the Trade Paperback edition.