The books.
What an odd question! I'm not sure I understand the point. Anyhow, I have neither the time nor really the inclination to go through my bookshelf to get an average page count. They were normal books.
Ask @antidem
Previous
How long were they?
As ask.fm is not a threaded conversation, it is not clear which "they" you are referring to.
Things are always getting better. Hurr durr Whig history.
My columns on the matter were heavily influenced by both Oswald Spengler and James Howard Kunstler. Kunstler, though a lifelong liberal Democrat, nevertheless has some ideas well worth being exposed to. His critique of the development of suburbia as perhaps the worst misallocation of human resources in history is fascinating, depressing, and almost certainly correct.
Related users
How many books do you read per year?
Until last year or so, 15-20. Events have forced me to slow down in the past year.
Women wear pyjamas in public now. Enjoy the decline.
The worst is when they do so at the airport. Ask any senior stewardess, and they'll share fond memories of the way people once used to dress, and act, when they got on an airplane.
Shit, it doesn't look like he's going to join.
I passed along your message, as I promised. My responsibility in the matter is ended.
Ask @derekmhopper to join ask.fm
I have passed along your request.
Do you know a lot about history?
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be.
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be.
Why do you think 85% of people are stupid?
That's not quite exactly what I said. There's an old saying that people get the governments they deserve. It's not a cheerful statement. My position is that a pretty consistent 15% actually don't, and have to suffer through what they get through no fault of their own.
I don't think that 85% of people are stupid, but I think that 85% of people are incapable of rational self-government. But that's like saying that 85% of people are incapable of writing a symphony or really understanding quantum physics - it's a very high bar. It's one that we, in the words of our esteemed former President, misunderestimate. Being capable of rational self-government is a rarified aptitude - one that fewer people than we'd like to believe actually have. Most people work on emotion, they are prone towards believing what everyone around them does, they go along to get along, they trust that authority figures tell them the truth, they lean towards simple patriotism and tribalism (though a tribe can be defined multiple ways), they're easily-contented with a modicum of prosperity, they're easily-distracted by spectacle, they're obedient to leaders as long as they're not too openly tyrannical, and they lack the honed critical thinking skills necessary to be properly skeptical of what they see in the world around them.
That doesn't make them evil. It doesn't even make them stupid. It just makes them incapable of rational self-government.
I don't think that 85% of people are stupid, but I think that 85% of people are incapable of rational self-government. But that's like saying that 85% of people are incapable of writing a symphony or really understanding quantum physics - it's a very high bar. It's one that we, in the words of our esteemed former President, misunderestimate. Being capable of rational self-government is a rarified aptitude - one that fewer people than we'd like to believe actually have. Most people work on emotion, they are prone towards believing what everyone around them does, they go along to get along, they trust that authority figures tell them the truth, they lean towards simple patriotism and tribalism (though a tribe can be defined multiple ways), they're easily-contented with a modicum of prosperity, they're easily-distracted by spectacle, they're obedient to leaders as long as they're not too openly tyrannical, and they lack the honed critical thinking skills necessary to be properly skeptical of what they see in the world around them.
That doesn't make them evil. It doesn't even make them stupid. It just makes them incapable of rational self-government.
What do you think about the decline of Facebook?
Facebook is, in the words of the great Senator Pat Moynihan, boob bait for bubbas. In general, the tech industry is run by people who are equal parts immature and unethical. This may change as the industry matures, plateaus, and ends up in the hands of bean-counters like Satya Nadella. But for now, I wouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg farther than I could throw Chris Christie, and anything that takes more power out of his hands is a good thing.
Do you support the death penalty?
On my religious principles as a Catholic, I cannot.
Now, as for supporting penal colonies on remote islands where miscreants break rocks and eat gruel, that's another story...
Now, as for supporting penal colonies on remote islands where miscreants break rocks and eat gruel, that's another story...
How old are you?
Old enough.
Can you ask @ReactionaryCEO to join ask.fm?
I have passed along your request.
Beta males.
Unimpressive men and unimpressive women create each other in a feedback loop. It's a race to the bottom. How can you have heroes without damsels-in-distress to save? What's the point of Knights in Shining Armor without Princesses to rescue?
Men create civilizations to protect their women. When the women no longer want or need protecting, men stop feeling any motivation to build and maintain civilizations for them. The result? A crumbling civilization, and "Bronies".
Anyhow, for more reading, consult Helen Smith: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594036756/
Men create civilizations to protect their women. When the women no longer want or need protecting, men stop feeling any motivation to build and maintain civilizations for them. The result? A crumbling civilization, and "Bronies".
Anyhow, for more reading, consult Helen Smith: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594036756/
What do you think about the betatude of the modern man?
Do you mean "betatude" as in beta males, or "beatitude" as in the Christian blessing? If the first, my reaction is that now we know why the Roman legions started recruiting Germanic barbarians, and why those barbarians were able to turn around and sack Rome. As for the second, as William S. Lind said, this society needs way less felicitas and way more beatitudinae - less concen about being happy, and more about being saved.
What do you think about freedom of speech?
I have an upcoming column planned on that. To give the short and oversimplified version, I think freedom fails at the top end because it inevitably becomes cartelized. The bright and ambitious, and frequently also ruthless, rise to the top of their chosen endeavors, form a cartel, raise the barriers to entry, and shut out anybody else. What you end up with is a system that's not free in any practical sense anymore. In other words, freedom destroys itself. You can see this in business, in politics, in academia, but nowhere more so than in media. Try being a conservative in Hollywood (or on a college campus) and you'll see what I mean. Or try being a third-party candidate in a state or national election. Or try starting a business to challenge big players in an established, mature market (i.e., not still-new markets like internet companies).
So the long story short is, we really don't have freedom of speech *now*. Not in mainstream media, anyway. On the internet, yes, if you look for it hard, and until the powers-that-be find a way to get "hate speech" removed from it (an effort that is well underway), but that was a fluke of technology; something that developed in a unique way and faster than the powers-that-be could find ways to control it.
Now, as for what I would do in my ideal state: there would be some ideas that I would prohibit from being expressed - not as a matter of ideology so much as a matter of survival. Richard Dawkins is right about this: ideas can spread like viruses, and some can be fatal. For example, 100 million people died because of Karl Marx's stupid ideas - yes, someone should have damn well chucked them in the fire back in 1844. In general, however, I would prohibit as little as I possibly could.
So the long story short is, we really don't have freedom of speech *now*. Not in mainstream media, anyway. On the internet, yes, if you look for it hard, and until the powers-that-be find a way to get "hate speech" removed from it (an effort that is well underway), but that was a fluke of technology; something that developed in a unique way and faster than the powers-that-be could find ways to control it.
Now, as for what I would do in my ideal state: there would be some ideas that I would prohibit from being expressed - not as a matter of ideology so much as a matter of survival. Richard Dawkins is right about this: ideas can spread like viruses, and some can be fatal. For example, 100 million people died because of Karl Marx's stupid ideas - yes, someone should have damn well chucked them in the fire back in 1844. In general, however, I would prohibit as little as I possibly could.
Gays are being treated unfairly in Russia though. But the squealing of leftists about this is ridiculous. Gay people are treated much worse in other countries - or should I say countries with a non-white majority - and they never mention that.
Again, they're at your feet or at your throat. I'll take the "feet" option. So, apparently, will Vladimir Putin.
Fair enough.
Another satisfied customer.
Why do you have a problem with homosexuality?
There is no requirement for a society to throw away its most important core traditions to cater to the desires of a tiny minority of dysfunctional people. That said, my natural inclination would be that so long as homosexuals went discreetly about their business, I would pity them, but prefer to discreetly leave them alone. But they seem unwilling and unable to do that. Instead, they have declared open war on the faith and traditions I believe in, seeking to break the back of my faith and upend all of my traditions in their manic quest to force the approval of others. If they declare open war on everything I believe in, why should I not resent them? They have proven that, as Vox Day said (quoting Churchill), they are either at your feet or at your throat - we cannot tolerate them because they will not tolerate us.
If it's a war they want, they've got one. And I have chosen my side.
If it's a war they want, they've got one. And I have chosen my side.
Dostoyevsky?
Karamazov is on my short list. I went out of my way to find the Peavar/Volokhonsky translation since I liked their translation of The Master and Margarita so much.
Have you read Tolstoy?
Unfortunately my schedule has not yet allowed me time to.
Savage has a PhD? There's hope for everyone. Don't ever mention Bill Maher again. He fucking pisses me off.
Yup. Something to do with having studied the diets of traditional tribes and learned their nutritional secrets. He published a few books on the subject under his real name before he started doing radio. http://www.amazon.com/Michael-A.-Weiner/e/B001HCYZ9W/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1391834942&sr=8-1
Yeah, they condemn the likes of Glenn Beck, Rugh Limbaugh and Michael Savage for being so ridiculous, but adore their left-wing equivalents.
Savage, at least, has a Ph. D from Berkeley. Unfunny comedians are the vanguard of the American left these days. Stewart, Colbert, Louis C.K., Margaret Cho, Tom Ammiano, Bill Maher...
I see you dislike Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. You and me both.
It is the definition of Idiocracy that large numbers of our citizens get their news and political commentary from professional comedians on the Comedy Network, and think themselves sophisticated for it. When I was young, the left complained that the news was becoming "edutainment". Now they flock to it, as long as it's done by leftists.
In my experience stupid people are much more open about their views, letting them be known when they're not even asked about them. They just repeat clichéd slogans ad nauseam.
And the worst among them are the celebrities.
Next
