User Profile

If this had been the only book on libertarianism I had ever read, I would probably have become an authoritarian. I'm aware that academics often use words differently than us normies do, but the idea that there is a school of "ethics" that includes allowing one's own baby to starve to death is unfathomable.

Clearly by the 1980s Rothbard was already well on his journey right-ward from the leftist activists had the pleasure of working with in the 1960s Peace & Liberty Party and the author of radical works like "Man economy & State." He spends the whole book looking at his basis for an economic and "legal" system in a libertarian society and expanding upon those for various parts of life and society. However, he just accepts his own basis as fact and doesn't even seem to attempt to argue why that should be a basis of any thought, let alone libertarianism. This is particularly true in the first section of property ownership. There is no explanation why mixing one's labor with unowned property automatically makes it the private property of the laborer. There is no question as to the idea that an individual can be private property, even to himself, while also claiming that slavery, even so-called voluntary slavery, is unethical. There is absolutely no explanation why inheritance is considered an ethical transfer of private property rights, but a promise to do so is not. (There are plenty of reasons he says why a promise is not, but I see that as little difference than inheritance). There was a whole chapter on the transfer of land titles and the problem of tracking such back to its rightful owner, yet there was 0 reference to the obvious cases of this such as European colonialization into Australia, Africa, & the Americas. An incredible western European centric viewpoint, particularly when you consider Rothbard was an American Jew.

One thing he did do right was right in the introduction he made it clear that nothing contained within would be able to challenge Marxists ideals, including the labor-theory-of-value, as the ideas are so far apart, they can't even be compared properly.

I've been a Libertarian for over 20 years, and no argument against liberty written by a statist has come nearly close to making me question my belief in libertarianism as this one of the American libertarian right.

We join our hero a year after our last adventure where his memory was altered and his wife had passed. Indy is looking for something to get out of teaching Celtic Archeology & the dean is looking to rid the university of him.

His trip to his al ma matter in the University of Chicago doesn't quite go as planned, it seems his juvenille hijinks from the first book in the series are still haunting him. He's able to hook up with his old college roommate, Jack Shannon, who's Jazz club is off-the-charts these days, but Al Capone is not down with dat.

The book felt like MacGregor had recently been born-again during his authoring of the series. While biblical adjacent stories are not new to the franchise, look at "Raiders of the Lost Arc", this has a lot of very baby Christian references far beyond the academic fiction of Raiders. Shannon himself has recently been born-again but sees little issue of him committing to his crime-family and his Pentecostal church. He is infatuated by a young woman whose dad comes to speak at his church regarding Noah's Ark.

Indy too likes the new girl, which is the primary reason he agrees to go with her dad on the quest to re-locate Noah's Ark. Dr. Vladimir Zobolonksy for religious/political reasons, Indy for personal/academic. Some Russian communists, and Islamic Fascists try to stop their journey along the way because...why not?

The story kept the plot moving as an Indian Jones film. This is the first book in the series I felt actually would have been better as a movie, mostly because the characters are frequently speaking different languages, which would be much clearer on TV with English Subtitles than reading it all in English and only getting hints on code-switching. Otherwise, MacGregor does a fine job, he is great at making large jumps in time of the plot make sense and feel normal.

The biggest reason "Genesis Deluge" does reach my 5 star is two of the tertiary characters have close loved ones die, yet their mourning is complete in a sentence or two. While MacGregor tries to cover this with the characters' own lives being in such peril that they have to move on quickly, it doesn't feel realistic nor emotionally intelligent.

Not nearly as good as the previous book in the series "...and the Dance of the Giants." While the adventure at stone henge ended with Diedre having second thoughts about marrying Indy, leading to believe we'd probably never see her again, but their on-again-off-again relationship is on for most of the book, with a note that her mother died, which I don't recall being in the last book.

Brody thinks he has found proof that there were European explorers to the Americas long before Columbus (& Leif Ericson though no mention of him) & there is one eccentric English explorer who agrees, Jack Fawcett. Of course, he disappears while in search of proof, Deidre and Indy go looking for him with very little evidence to go on. At times the book is hard to follow, the "seven veils" from the title refer to a way the people in this lost world work, through magic, mystery & dreams, the convoluted plot, particularly near the end, reminds me of Illuminatus!

The middle was quite blase and easy to put down. The ending was not a total surprise, though it kept you guessing till you got there, and somewhat of a letdown.