You know when you pick up the book on a subject you are interested in but with reluctance, because author's background is more in terms of esoteric and other-worldly philosophical areas? No? Well lucky you because that's how I felt but having heard only best of the author from other sources I decided to pick it up. And result, you ask? Latest confirmation that you must never judge the book by external elements. If theme is what you like dive into it and only then judge the book.

This is for me one of the books that resonate so well with modern times. Unfortunately.

Although author starts from the institution of Inquisition as a one of the earliest and most complete security/obedience enforcement organizations ever developed it is clear (and author himself states it multiple times) that goal is not to see Inquisition as sole role-mode, archetype, for totalitarian regimes. Islamic world and Asian parts of the world are also mentioned but author concentrates on the West, or to be more precise area that was under influence of Christianity because this is area he seems to be most familiar with (or his targeted audience).

Author takes us on a journey through history in which we can see that every society that had a misfortune of being hunted by other people unfortunately almost always grows into society that resembles its hunters more than it resembles oneself in the past. This is what happened to Christianity and, I have to say sadly, any oppressed people that came to power even recently - very soon they managed to develop methods and organizations to use oppression against people they consider the enemy (fictional or real).

When certain ideas survive out of fear (and it seems that humanity in general prefers fear to reason) they tend to stick and pop up over and over again. It only depends on the human society itself if it will be able to be above those fears or succumb to it again but now with ever wider technological and industrial means at its disposal. So we follow Inquisition's terror as it sought out to remove any dissent that would oppose Catholic Church orthodoxy, 17th, 18th and 19th century philosophers that were terrified of democracy because they saw it as a rule of the mob (and were terrified by the results in the French Revolution) and wished for more totalitarian state that will bring uniformity and safety (again through termination of others that did not share this idea) that again were inspiration to philosophers of first half of 20th century that raised these questions again but this time goal was to do this properly, in a secular way, by seeking fully secular tyranny in order to fulfill the idea of utopia and by declaring religion as unwanted element amongst other things (and unfortunately this took place during the technological and industrial boom that when used in service of tyranny took away oh so many lives). And there came Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot to name the few popular faces from history.

This did not stop even after WW2 - only thing that changed was that level of technology grew almost exponentially together with constant economical stress on the human society and ever growing wish for order, order, order (and termination of all those that oppose it) out of anxiety and stress of everything happening around the world.

And through this constant search for uniformity and order what comes out is nothing but chaos, total disorder and destruction. Because uniformity and order are not something that exists in nature - even our bodies are not symmetrical. There is always that small fleck of non-uniformity that makes life what it is.

I am sure that main culprit here is visible - idea. On itself idea is something that needs to be sought after and with time one figures out the way how to get closer to it. But idea is idea, not corporal particle, it is something that has different meaning for everyone and needs to be that never reached goal that makes life worth living.

But imposed idea, especially system built around it, ideocracy, is extremely dangerous. This i sno longer idea one takes into account and thinks about. This is now almost corporeal particle that one needs to consume and nourish no matter how he feels about it.

With this totalitarian society rises up, in form of suffocating box into which leaders try to mold in their populace and any divergence, any non-conformity is treated as a faulty product on production line - it is discarded (makes sense why this became so popular in mechanistic technological world, doesnt it). That social force behind the idea needs to be ruthless - it cannot accept any challenge.

Reason is simple - imagine allowing others to have different views and (as is always case with societies that live from one extreme to another) that other view becomes confirmed this way or other, what happens to people that have accepted failed idea as something to live by? That potentially did some things they would usually be ashamed of or even tried in court? What if they are called charlatans after their idea is proved wrong (that constant anxiety and doubt, and question what if?)? Or just imagine that somebody says who cares for this idea - imagine this hit to the enormous ego of the zealots? It would be disaster.

So whenever people start to polarize around idea(s) - be it cults of personalities, hatred of personalities or abstract ideas in general - there is mayhem incoming, that can only result in violence. Dangerous thing here is that whenever some idea is worshiped by the majority, or at least ruling majority, those with power in their hands, they need to have opposition (real or imagined) and they constantly seek out to find them - even when real enemies are destroyed others will be found and wheel just keeps on turning. And when enemies are found they need to be dehumanized in order to act against them. Here greater the distance between worshipers and "enemies" it is easier to dehumanize the "enemies" to a levels that they have no rights, no freedoms nothing. This is why it is paradox that in times of original Inquisition people were much closer than today and animosity was at lower levels (bloody notwithstanding). Today society even in a single city is so heterogeneous that playing one part of society against the others is very very easy for the zealot of the new idea.

And people rallying behind the idea - even greater paradox is that they are truly believing into it, they are honest in the devotion, they cry, they scream, they are so emotionally involved that whatever capacity of reasoning they have it just does not get to the surface - idea is everything. They are the chosen, only ones who can enlighten the others and with this hubris they take the flaming sword and start their ideological crusade. And now terrible part - this appears on every extreme of political and religious spectrum. And every society can succumb to it (stressors are everywhere - from economy to social questions, make your pick), it seems to be only matter of time. True value of society is how quickly it manages to recover and get back to normal.

It is very interesting (and confirms author's views) that when book was written it was middle of first decade of War on terror. Terrible decisions, war mongering, curbing of freedom for sake of security (that constant cry for order, no matter what) and introduction of rather drastic means coupled with almost messianic rise of a single country as a beacon of light that has unique destiny to police the world. I wonder what author would think of that same country but now ruled by politicians from the other side of the spectrum - time when censure is out of control, violence reins and "others", non-compliant, are dehumanized (isn't it disturbing how many politicians from what seemed to be ordered countries talk about parts of their populace as those that will have no freedom, no social interactions at all until they comply .... pariah's, scapegoats that are cause of all that is going on)).

And reason again is idea - clinging to something that allows for no compromise. It seems that this is something that is inherently part of humanity's collective psychology - whenever in crisis we tend to stick to traditions of the past of our immediate people (one of the reasons why we might see in some of the philosophers call for something that is basically evil, dehumanizing and destructive - it is only because they draw from tradition of their own people and, hey, solution was effective once so it should be again, right?) and problem starts to grow, because tradition is exclusive, usually is not opened to everyone, only to selected few and when in crisis majority will trade their own soul for security.

You might say that tradition never follows trends in what is advertised as modern society as majority sees it in every day life (if you do not believe just see behavior of people when all is going well and when there are troubles). Society might test some new approaches and inventions but it takes much much longer time for those changes to take root. And today we have technological means that have outgrown speed of society development and as such act more like tools of division than unity - just look at modern media, shame.

Tradition would work if we still lived thousands of miles apart as was the case thousands of years ago - each community small world for itself. But as society gets increasingly intermixed in smaller places (gigantic cities and urban areas) then it becomes more and more concentrated powder keg. And when you add ever pragmatic, power-hungry and corrupt politicians into equation .... cataclysm.

While above sounds rather dispiriting I agree with author that what needs to be done is to grow internally, we need to aspire to become best we can be, always open to dialogue and never letting something so abstract as ideas of any sort to cause the loss of humanity in us and fellow men.

Day we become orderly robots will be the day humanity will vanish from the scene.

And that day is eons away.

Highly recommended book. Exceptional. ( )