Dean Machine

I was expecting a more biological look at the evolution and expansion of man. But this was look at the sociology. (That's my own fault for not reading enough sample pages) I thought the writing style was strange at times. Sometimes taking way too much time breaking down well known, and easily understood topics, seemingly for the extra sentences to make the book longer. At many times this unnecessarily complicated style was pandering to the liberal crowd. example: "Recent studies of the hormonal and cognitive systems of man and women strengthen the assumption that men indeed have more aggressive and violent tendencies, and are therefore, on average, better suited to serve as common soldiers. Yet granted that the common soldiers are all men, does it follow that the ones managing the war and enjoying it fruits must also be men? That makes no sense. It's like assuming that because all the slaves cultivating cotton fields are black, plantation owners will be black as well. Just as an all-black workforce might be controlled by an all-white management, why couldn't an all male soldiery be controlled by an all-female or at least partly female government?" It's a jumble of words that often point to misogyny and racism. And a lot of the book seems to be preaching the "white man" is evil story. I would say it's an op-ed presented as a history book.

What an awful presentation, at least for the first 100+ pages. It's been a first person account of trying to get information from people 40 years after the events took place. There's a whole lot of name dropping and stories of how nobody wants to talk to the author. There's a lot of hearsay and, like I said, people being interviewed decades after the events took place. 25% through the book and no mention of the "CIA and the secret history of the sixties" 112 pages in and there hasn't been a single revelation. Get to the point!