The Red New Deal reviews
What this page covers
The Red New Deal reviews
The Red New Deal shares Dmitri I. Dubograev’s first‑hand view of life under Soviet socialism and his concerns about modern political trends, civil liberties, and political labeling in the United States and beyond. Instead of listing star ratings, this page outlines what readers are likely to react to in the book and how they may respond to its themes and arguments.
Because the book deals with charged topics such as terrorism, protest violence, censorship, and self‑defense, reactions often center on how convincingly the author links his personal experiences and historical events to his broader critique of modern politics, media, and the real cost of so‑called free benefits under socialist ideas.
In brief
- This page highlights what readers are likely to comment on in reviews of The Red New Deal, based on its themes, stories from the USSR, and real‑world episodes described by Dmitri I. Dubograev.
- The book includes vivid personal recollections, such as the author’s diverted flight on September 11, 2001, and memories of shortages and restrictions in the Soviet Union, which may shape how readers judge its emotional impact and credibility.
- Given its strong views on socialism, terrorism, protests, media control, and self‑defense, reviews may vary widely depending on each reader’s political outlook and experience with government promises of free benefits.
What to do
The Red New Deal is not a neutral overview of current events or economic systems. It is a pointed commentary that challenges how terms like terrorist are used in American public life and how socialist ideas are marketed as free. Dubograev argues that people who refuse vaccination, including for natural immunity or religious reasons, should not be equated with terrorists, and that such language should be reserved for acts like torture, murder of innocents, or attacks such as 9/11 and the Boston bombing. Readers who value precise political language and civil liberties may focus their reviews on whether the book makes this case persuasively.
A central narrative thread likely to influence reviews is the author’s account of being on a transatlantic flight on September 11, 2001. He describes the anxiety of a sudden 180‑degree turn toward Gander, Canada, the fear of a possible hijacking, and the emotional weight that day still carries for his family. Details such as writing a farewell note, carrying a knife on board at that time, and the hospitality shown by Gander residents, including warm clothes and bear cutlets, give the book a memoir‑like quality that some readers may find compelling and authentic.
Beyond American events, the book also examines Russian media and politics, noting how independent outlets such as Dozhd (Rain) and Medusa were labeled foreign agents and pushed off television. He contrasts everyday life under Soviet socialism, with its shortages and control, with modern trends in Western democracies, including cancel culture and pressure on dissenting voices. This focus on censorship, information control, and the hidden price of free programs may lead reviewers to comment on how effectively the author connects Russian and Soviet experience with trends he sees in the United States and other democracies. Overall, readers’ evaluations are likely to hinge on whether they find these parallels insightful, overstated, or provocative in a useful way.
What to keep in mind
The Red New Deal is written from a clearly defined point of view and does not try to present all sides with equal weight. It criticizes the misuse of the word terrorist, highlights violent protests and looting, and contrasts them with large‑scale attacks like 9/11. It also warns that when governments promise that everything is free, citizens themselves may become the price through lost freedom and control. Potential readers should expect a strong, opinionated narrative rather than a detached academic treatment, and reviews will often reflect how comfortable readers are with that tone.
The book also addresses sensitive issues such as self‑defense, criminal prosecutions, and the treatment of victims in both Russia and the United States. For example, it recounts cases where women who fought back against assailants were convicted of murder, and it links these outcomes to what the author describes as a socialist approach to violence and justice. It further compares this mindset to commentary around the Kenosha events and to criticism of Israel’s right to defend itself. Readers who prefer to avoid graphic or emotionally charged legal and political examples may find these sections difficult, and their reviews may mention this as a limitation for some audiences.
Because the work connects Soviet and Russian media restrictions, Western‑style democracy in Israel, and American political conflicts under a single interpretive framework focused on socialism and freedom, it is best suited to readers interested in strong ideological analysis and first‑person testimony. Those looking for a balanced survey of multiple viewpoints, or for strictly factual reporting without commentary, may not find what they expect and could reflect that in their feedback. Prospective readers should keep in mind that reviews will likely be polarized, shaped by how closely their own experiences and beliefs align with Dubograev’s arguments about the real cost of free.