I have done so and will share my thoughts here.
If Erik wants to chime in and share any thoughts on why he wrote this book, he is more then welcome to do so.
I first came across Erik Blaire when I heard an interview he had done with Jan Irving at Gnostic Media. I am reposting the interview as it will help give the listener/reader some idea of what his book is about, so you will find the interview at the bottom after my review.
Erik's book isYou can read a bit of it for yourself here
By the way, this is the first time I have ever seriously reviewed a book, other then "yeah that was a good book" or "that book was crap". So here we go, for better or worse!
Erik has a quote in his book that in my opinion summarized quite nicely what his book sets out to accomplish.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
Stating the obvious, or what should be obvious, to the people would not be necessary. But it is, thanks to the obfuscation of the mainstream media. Therefore stating the obvious has become an absolute necessity in these times.
Erik is stating the obvious in a readable and thought provoking book.
In the preface of the book, Erik introduces us to allopathy (modern medicine), what allopathy is etc., What I found striking was the ever changing definitions of allopathy.
These ever changing definitions serve to muddy the waters on what it is medicine is supposed to be. Helpful or hurtful?
A fact that Erik brings to light is that allopathy or modern medicine is killer #1 of Americans. Or that when doctors strike mortality decreases.
These facts demonstrate that there are big issues with mainstream medicine, and yet they are unknown. Why?
In Part 2 the author introduces us to the terminology of 1984 then applies these terminologies to our modern society.
In Parts 3 and 4 he explores paranoia and disobedience in our conformist society.
Where labels of paranoia and disobedience stem from non-conformity rather then illness.
I like Erik's mono logging experiment. It left me with a picture of the author sitting in a park enduring disapproving stares while he engaged in an activity, that had a child done this would have surely resulted in smiles, and "oh, isn't that cute"
The explanation of Laws vs Norms was quite good. This line of thinking was one I had never engaged in. But, how correct Erik was in pointing out just how restrictive norms are! How well behaviour is controlled, through perceived norms, without a law ever being enacted.
My two wishes for the book were that, first, Erik would have explored the "Laws vs Norms" thought line at length. I can help you out with a recent example of something that happened to me, when I did not adhere to a perceived norm Erik.
My second wish. Erik brings forth a concept, allopathy (medicine) as fascism, that I wish he would have examined further. I see in my notes I wrote "good concept-expand on it".
Overall, I enjoyed the book! 5 stars!