The Reluctant Fundamentalist

But I did none of these things. Instead, I blushed and said, "Hello." She smiled ---- with uncharacteristic shyness, it seemed to me ---and replied, "Hi." I nodded, tried to think of something else to say, failed, and said, "Hello," again. As soon as i had done this, I wanted to disappear; I knew I sounded unbelievably foolish. She started to laugh, her small breasts bouncing, and said, "I'm going for a swim." But then, as she walked away, she half-turned and added, "You want to come?" (Pg 24)


My mother always cooks dinner. Never, ever anyone but her, "Delicious." It is --- with different flavors, it always seems good--- and yummy, "Tempting." Always tempting, sugary goodness making your mouth water with saliva, delicious, and lovely. "Quenching" always. As soon as it hits my tongue, the thirst goes away; I know it sounds dramatic. Turkey isn't my favorite, none the less,  "Eat it it is good" Mom says, but I never do,  macaroni and cheese is my style,  "But put that down."

World War 2 Speech Analysis

Emperor Hirohito’s Surrender speech, Winston Churchill’s, “Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears” (speech), Goebbel’s “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose” all use many similar stylistic devices that alter the readers perception and interpretation of their speeches and the events occurring.

 A prime example lies within the victimizing in Emperor Hirohito’s Surrender speech and Goebbel’s “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose. Discarding the fact that the Japanese killed innocent civilians and did extremely detrimental things to those in World War 2 their main reason for surrendering appeared to be “ the war situation has not developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.” Hirohito’s diction and use of a litote(understatement) allowed him to victimize Japan rather than taking the actual blame in the situation. Using similar diction and stylistic devices Goebbels speech on total war allows him to victimize himself and Germany in their decision to start the war. “It was two minutes before midnight. Waiting any longer could easily have led to the destruction of the Reich and a total Bolshevization of the European continent.” Using slippery slope fallacy Goebbels justifies and victimizes himself and Germany in their decision.

Another prevalent idea within Goebbels “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose and Winston Churchill’s, “Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears” is to call upon the patriotism and instill unity within its citizens. At the end of Goebbels speech has a series of questions that he asks his supporters in the war. “ Are you resolved to follow the Fuhrer through thick and thin...... Are you and the German people willing to work, if the Fuhrer orders…..Is your confidence in the Fuhrer greater……?” These series of rhetorical questions creates a bandwagon effect and instills patriotism within the reader. Giving an either or fallacy Goebbels instills guilt in the reader if he does not follow the bandwagon. In Winston Churchill’s, “Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears” Churchill gives the same effect to his readers by instilling the idea of unity and a “together we can win but divided we fall apart” effect. “ At this time I feel entitled to claim the aim of all, and I say, “ Come then, lets go forward together with our united strength.”” Churchill’s diction with his “entitlement” to ask for help creates a bandwagon and instills patriotism within the reader.

A common stylistic device between all three of the World War 2 speeches is by zoomorphism and making their enemy seem like the most eminent threat in the world. Churchill said “….to wage a war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and the lamentable catalogue of human crime.” Goebbels said “International Jewry is the devilish ferment of decomposition that finds cynical satisfaction in plunging the world into the deepest chaos and destroying ancient cultures that it played no role in building.” Hirohito said “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb..” All three speeches give the effect that the enemies are the most important and evil danger in the world.

All three speeches use many similar stylistic devices that hide the truth by altering the readers perception of the situations.

Machiavelli Vs. Thoreau Ideologies

Machiavelli in his book The Morals of the Prince maintains the ideal principle that a prince must look out and do what is in the best interests of himself and his kingdom. Regardless of any backfiring or how his subjects might feel on the matter Machiavelli claims that a prince must and should do what he feels is right in the circumstance. Thoreau correspondingly believes that a man must do what he believes is right for him and should not follow the beliefs of other men and follow the bandwagon. Both of these men mutually share the same ideas on how a man should control his actions.

Machiavelli often states that a prince must do what is in the best interests of him and his kingdom, correspondingly Thoreau believes that governments are often unjustified in their actions. Thoreau says “The government itself which is the only mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” Thoreau claims here that although the government is the only way a man can execute his wants and needs it can still be abused and corrupted. This is supported by the mere fact that Machiavelli believes that princes must “manipulate the minds of men” and “must learn how not to be good” in order to control his reign and protect his empire.

An apparent relationship between Machiavelli and Thoreau’s writing is that Machiavelli writes for the leader of a monarch while Thoreau writes for the subordinate and the common “man”. Machiavelli writes on how to correctly control a government although it may not be considered morally correct. Thoreau on the other hand writes on how a man should act based on his own morals. Machiavelli shows that leaders have to be feared and run their empires based on cruelty rather than love, they shouldn't be generous and they should manipulate the minds of their subjects. Thoreau writes on how a man should challenge these principles. Thoreau writes so that the subject of said government should go against the rules and laws of the leader and they should do what they feel is right for them rather than what the leader demands.

Throughout all of the ideologies that appear through both texts there is one clear idea that is prominent in both texts. The idea is that people do things because we have to not because we want to. Within Thoreau’s text he explains that men often pay taxes and vote not because they actually want to, but it is due to the fear instilled in them by the government. Within Machiavelli’s text he shows that a prince mustn't be generous or merciful not because of his morals but because of what is best for the government and his supremacy. The idea that doing what we have to is more important than doing what we want to is prominent in both texts.