The jungle that the author describes is bleak and dystopian.

I find it interesting that all of these are based on the opinions of other people. Not one of the three is based on self motivation but instead, fear of being scrutinized by others.

I agree with the author here. I think many men will admit someone is smarter or more skilled which is why we have terms such as book smart and street smart. I think it is a way to compliment someone but to not put their skills over your own.

This reminds me of the story of David and Goliath and how someone who was physically weaker could kill someone who was much stronger.

In the Bible a leviathan is a multiheaded sea serpent that is killed by God and given as food to the Hebrews in the wilderness. Is the author comparing humans to monsters?

These are two complete opposite words one meaning intense happiness and the other is intense sadness. I wonder if the author is saying that the natural condition of mankind is to have a rollercoaster of emotions.

This reminds me of how left and right news stations will spin a story in order to serve their own purpose. Each group is trying to either glorify or villainize facism to appeal to their followers.

Humiliation is a very good motivator for people. Nobody wants to feel inferior to another so by convincing people they are inferior to another group will give them a common enemy.

I agree with what the author is saying here because learning can be very dangerous to a fascist society. Once citizens begin to question their government it weakens its strength.

In short, neo-pagans believe in a universe in which each part of the interconnected cosmos affects every other part. I don’t necessarily see how this coincides with the nazi agenda.

The Fate of Rome is the first book to examine the catastrophic role that climate change and infectious diseases played in the collapse of Rome's power.

I believe that the “they” the narrator is referring to is their enemy. But the harm in this sentiment is that every member involved in this conflict will hold this idea. So following the conflict the countries involved will still have problems because they still believe their cause was correct.

This reminds me of the Handmaid’s tale and how Gilead was in constant war. The threat of foreign danger hung over its citizens heads.

I believe this was culture shock for the narrator because he had probably never seen a black person before. But I also think its ironic that a black man who has been oppressed for centuries in the USA served as a liberator for another culture.

Benito Mussolini was an Italian dictator who founded and led the National Fascist Party.

This reminds me of the Hitler Youth during Nazi Germany. The children are indoctrinated and given awards as a way to encourage this process and installment of those ideas.

I think I understand what Freud is trying to say here. That the anger we feel when we have been wronged isn’t due to what specifically happened. It is a human response to some sort of disrespect. The wars that have gone on since the start of mankind did start over a simple disagreement they were fueled by the nature of man and their anger.

I do not agree with Freud’s statement that the limitation of genital love is its exclusiveness. I believe the fact that it is exclusive is what give it strength. Knowing that you have a relationship with another that isn’t aimed has a certain level of comfort.

Linguistics are the general phenomenon of human language. So I believe Freud is talking about the feelings that we get from language and how that changes the interpretation.

The definition of primitive is not developed or derived from anything else. I do not agree with Freud’s use of this vocabulary word because it indicates non western societies were not developed. When in fact many of them had made advances in medicine and tools.

I understand what the author is trying to say here. Homosexuality has existed for centuries and gay men and lesbians are often group together, despite not sharing a gender or a member of the preferred sex. So when we group them together, they often do face different levels of oppression. Lesbians belong to a group of women who have been oppressed in this country for a long time. On the other hand gay men are still men and men have been at the head of this patriarchal society, so they can be argued that they face different levels of oppression, despite belonging to the same group. Which is why you have to examine the individuals of said group instead of looking at the group as a whole. In society, so many people can be put in so many different groups, because we have allowed for freedom of expression in this modern society.

Something I found interesting was on the previous page. The author states about how in a general sense all of the named oppressed groups are not able to express their needs, thoughts or feelings. But then, in an abstract sense, they all face a common condition. Which leads me to believe, the author is almost contradicting themselves when they say this. This is due to the fact, the author names multiple things at all these people suffer from, and then they can be broken down into further groups which is opposite to the idea that they suffer from one common condition.