The best thing about these Skype TV interviews is we can be on the lookout for problematic material on politicians’ bookshelves.— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) May 4, 2020
I’m compiling a database of MPs who might be reading beyond the scope of permitted opinions.
Report any suspicious books to me. I’ll do the rest. pic.twitter.com/dPTKvj6Aes
Ha. Not looking to call down the PC police, but this is just something else about the lockdown and the bookshelves, from Roz Chast:
That's the one Philip K. Dick book that I read, loved, and found to be sufficient: "The 3 Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch."
Also:
Nailed it. Depth. Color. Composition. And cool glasses. 10/10 @AlRoker pic.twitter.com/hUM7FoH2x4
— Room Rater (@ratemyskyperoom) May 3, 2020
Posts
138 comments:
Michael Gove, a British politician, is getting in trouble for having David Irving on his bookshelf.
I wonder which book that parrotlet is going to read.
I really enjoyed Small's illustrations in Home After Dark.
Forget unpermitted books. Do any of these people have any unpermitted opinions?
With those purple rimmed glasses old Al is starting to look like RuPaul.
I used to have a compilation book of R. Crumb comics. One of his characters was called "Big Baby" She used to engage in sexual activity with one of the other characters. Perhaps Mr Natural? For example, when she needed a bottle and none was available.
Back in the 80s or 90s, in a fit of paranoia, perhaps during the McMartin hoax, I got worried about what would happen if someone found it. My son takes it to school to show his buddies and a teacher finds it for example. Bing, I go to jail for child porn. Even though it was a comic. Even though it it was a drawing.
The name "Underground Comix" probably would not have helped, either.
Anyway, I threw that and a couple of other books of questionable morality away. And not in my trash, either. I put them in a bag and threw them away in a public trash can when nobody was watching.
Sure, pure paranoia. But just because it is paranoia doesn't mean it is not justified.
John Henry
I can't believe so many celebrities have boring white walls and woodwork.
I think Titania is on to something. Like that prof that had a "Busty co-eds" tab showing in a Zoom class or the newsman who had a "sexy lingerie" tab showing on TV, let's scrutinize the books in the background
I've always looked at books in anyone's house. Always curious to see what they are reading and looking for ideas for books to read myself.
Let's do it to pols and pundits. It may give some clues to their thinking. For example, if they have the 50 volume Lenin's Collected Works. But it might also be interesting to see if they have "Story of O" or Ann Rice's books. Or perhaps a bunch of "bodice rippers"
John Henry
I really like R. Crumb's illustrated Genesis, which has some great interpretations of the Bible stories.
One thing that's struck me in various zoom and FaceTime and other such interactions, whether one on one or especially in groups, is the intimacy of letting other people into your space. When you have a dinner party, you spruce up your home and invite all these other people into it. When you do a zoom happy hour or other gathering, you're all invited into one another's intimate spaces. You get to peak into people's lives as is, not how they live or conduct themselves in public. So there's social distancing and increasing social isolation, but this new form of socializing has also created a new kind of intimacy. Reminds me of the observation Jordan makes in Gatsby, about how big parties are so much more intimate than small parties.
We laugh at this, but as J. Farmer pointed out, Mr Gove is being seriously (well, 'seriously'...) questioned over his shelves' contents. How much power does Titania have, and does our laughing have, when there are real people out there intent on policing (in one way or another) what we read? I smiled at Titania and Eccles et al earlier but it's really nothing to smile about.
What drives me nuts is the number of people who are "back-focused", that is, their face is out of focus, but the wall/bookshelf 10 feet behind them is razor sharp.
Get it fixed people!
Dear Puerto, I threw away all my Zap comix that I had been carrying around for 20 years, out of a fit of shame.
Kinda wish I'd never seen them. Also wish I could get them back.
I've got an ad for All Negro Comics.
One of his characters was called "Big Baby" She used to engage in sexual activity with one of the other characters. Perhaps Mr Natural? For example, when she needed a bottle and none was available.
That's "On the Bum Again" (reprinted in "Carload O' Comics"). It starts with Mr. Natural tying up a young cowgirl, and, after many adventures with Big Baby, it ends with a disguised Mr. Natural learning about the "Happy Face" after his escape from prison.
Why not go for the top poseur award and sit in front of the Library of Congress to do you video?
Michael Gove, a British politician, is getting in trouble for having David Irving on his bookshelf.
I've got a David Irving, a Finkelstein and Kevin MacDonald's trilogy of Jew-resentment and attempted WASP awakening on my shelves, along with a few provocatively titled volumes like Sailer's America's Half Blood Prince and Camp of the Saints (as well as my college era copy of Mein Kampf). Reading widely means reading sometimes disagreeable stuff. How would I know that MacDonald, while occasionally interesting, is a resentment fueled blowhard/activist rather than a thinker, if I hadn't read his stuff? Even with these controversial and on occasion slanderous volumes, the only books that have every gotten negative comments from people reviewing my bookshelves are exploitation era fiction with tawdry covers and a Showgirls (film) illustrated monograph. The truly reactionary, dangerous stuff is apparently invisible to most people.
Roomrater is stealth propaganda from a Clinton lackey and his Canadian girlfriend. Do not let it eat away your brain.
I am interested in the books on bookshelves in movies, though. French movies always seem to have shelving in the background packed with books. Movies from other countries, not so much. The French filmmakers have to prove that their work is culturally significant, and bookshelves help. French intellectuals are easy to please, I guess.
Books used to have photos on the back cover of the author in front of carefully curated bookshelves, when they didn't just have a pensive headshot. Now it seems like they go for more natural, outdoors pictures sans books.
Kindle should make an app and device that can project a bookshelf onto a white wall or screen so that you can show your virtual bookshelf for people who aren't stuck on dead tree era media.
Better put Hillary!! and Obama Books front and center.
@daskol:
Even with these controversial and on occasion slanderous volumes, the only books that have every gotten negative comments from people reviewing my bookshelves are exploitation era fiction with tawdry covers and a Showgirls (film) illustrated monograph. The truly reactionary, dangerous stuff is apparently invisible to most people.
We have some similar reading habits. Whenever you start hanging around in nationalist or ethnically-oriented movements, you will invariably run into a lot of kooky, fringe stuff. But you also find a lot of the most original thinking, even if you have to wade through a lot of muck to get to it. I generally like to read people that are considered "far right" and "far left." The parameters of expression are much wider than what is permitted in the mainstream. I agree with the Chomsky take that in the mainstream a narrow range of views are permitted and intense debate within this range is permitted.
How would I know that MacDonald, while occasionally interesting, is a resentment fueled blowhard/activist rather than a thinker, if I hadn't read his stuff?
I'd be curious to know what was going on in MacDonald's personal life between the writing of the first and last book in the trilogy. By the third book, his tone becomes noticeably angrier and more strident.
Blogger Fernandistein said...
That's "On the Bum Again" (reprinted in "Carload O' Comics").
I am thinking that may be the name of the book I threw out. About an inch or so thick with a bunch of 4-6 page comic stories?
Sort of reddish cover?
I'm with Chicken. I wish I had it back. But I was never ashamed of having it.
John Henry
After I finish a book, I generally recycle it back to the thrift shop. The books I have not gotten around to reading yet stack up on the shelves. There's a much smaller selection of books I'm attached to and don't want to recycle. In any event, most of the books on my shelves are those that I'm not too enthusiastic about and have not yet read.....McCullough's Truman and Chernow's Hamilton are the two books I've seen the most frequently, maybe because I recognize the covers....Politicians read about politics. I bet some of them have actually read Hillary's books. As a genre, it doesn't hold much interest for me.
This is the greatest book I've ever seen on anyone's shelf.
https://www.amazon.com/Vessels-Rage-Engines-Power-Alcoholism-dp-0963024221/dp/0963024221/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
I do videos from a client's shop floor every month.
Once on a visit to the plant I set my camera on a tripod and collected a couple hours of video.
Now, I greenscreen myself and insert a chunk of that video behind me.
I also inserted a 70" TV screen into the shopfloor video. It too has a greenscreen that I drop out and insert videos, pictures, text etc.
https://youtu.be/Zu1FFNY6O9c
It should be easy to get some video of the library of Congress.
The whole greenscreen setup including lights on tripods with reflectors and stand for the greenscreen cost about $120 at Amazon.
I use Adobe Premiere elements for editing. That cost about $89.
I have a $500 Canon camcorder which I like. I used my phone one month as an experiment, and can't really tell much difference.
I'd be curious to know what was going on in MacDonald's personal life between the writing of the first and last book in the trilogy.
You mean besides the coordinated attempts to other him completely and ensure he and his work are unmentionable in polite society? Because I could see that getting to someone, and turning them from a thinker into an activist, and otherwise affecting the quality of one's work. But it is true: if you look at the recitation of facts in Culture of Critique, it overlaps mostly with books like The Jewish Century which don't take a negative view of Jewish accomplishment in the West.
"Dear Puerto, I threw away all my Zap comix that I had been carrying around for 20 years, out of a fit of shame.
"Kinda wish I'd never seen them. Also wish I could get them back."
You can always buy the slip-cased five-volume hard-cover set from Fantagraphics Books.
I bought it when it came out several years ago, even though I have all the original ZAP comic books. I would not normally have spent so much money on this, but my brothers and I had recently sold my parents' home after my mother's death, so I indulged myself with my portion of the proceeds. (I bought it from Amazon, who discounted the price. I think I paid a little lower than $400.00 for it.)
Here is a video preview.
I was sad to see by the end of Culture of Critique how resentful Macdonald was because I enjoyed a lot of that book's attacks on Frankfurt School and find the meta-description of different intellectual movements, while flawed, to be interesting.
Williams' approach above, displaying the books he hasn't gotten around to yet that are probably the ones he's least enthusiastic about is an interesting and illustrative case: reading a book, or keeping a copy on your bookshelf, is not an endorsement. It's even less an endorsement of the author than retweeting something. I have always sought out fringier writers whether fiction or nonfiction, but especially nonfiction. Far right or far left or impossible to characterize because of their own evolution, like the great John Gray, are all there.
"I am thinking that may be the name of the book I threw out. About an inch or so thick with a bunch of 4-6 page comic stories?
"Sort of reddish cover?"
Crumb's Carload O' Comics
"That's "On the Bum Again" (reprinted in "Carload O' Comics").
I am thinking that may be the name of the book I threw out. About an inch or so thick with a bunch of 4-6 page comic stories?
Sort of reddish cover?
Yes and yes. It's still available; my version has the crummy binding so the pages fall out, and "Including a brand-new 14-page story".
Well, I guess it's not still available except used; on amazon look around, they're selling for $20 to $150. I paid $16.95 back in 1996 or so.
Titania -
"The phrase “Asian giant hornet" is a racist dog whistle that perpetuates the stereotype of Asians as lively, volatile, and fond of eating insects."
WTF?
A monkey zips up on a motorcycle and tries to kidnap a small child?
Turn the sound on.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1257230244483907584
@daskol:
You mean besides the coordinated attempts to other him completely and ensure he and his work are unmentionable in polite society? Because I could see that getting to someone, and turning them from a thinker into an activist, and otherwise affecting the quality of one's work.
The problem with that explanation is that what you describe occurred after the culture of critique series was published. The last book in the series was published in 1998, and the campaign you describe didn't really begin until the aughts and intensified during that decade. Before that, MacDonald was largely ignored.
Armstrong and Getty both pronounce "deaths" with a voiced "th." Like bookshelf and bookshelves. A voiced "f" is a "v."
It sounds illiterate to me but no doubt it's a dialect somewhere.
"Aloha Bitches!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJsE_X7EsfM
This makes me laugh, the idea that these people haven't crafted their "library" not to be an prop they want the world to see. Have you ever seen the nonsense book props at IKEA to fill out their bookshelf furniture?
The background affects how the politicians are perceived. In Titania McGrath's tweet the first guy looks like he is in a doll house, a surrealist fun house or even a prison cell: the space around him is so small. A lot of clutter on the walls, too. The second guy, former PM Gordon Brown is set against a very expansive book shelf, making him a great man of the world. He's small compared to the bookcase, but its very size makes him into a substantial figure. The third guy, who may be Iain Duncan Smith, has a squat, stocky body, a big, stocky head and a compact, stocky book case, and comes across a bit like a bull or bulldog. The woman, Lisa Nandy - people are asking why she's wearing a wimple, and if it's a homage to The Handmaiden's Tale. Low ceiling. Bad lighting.
Roomrater is stealth propaganda from a Clinton lackey and his Canadian girlfriend.
It's a shame that like everything else this is politicized. It would otherwise be a fun exercise.
"Rest and Recharge"
"Change Sheets Twice a Week"
Are those interrelated? Do you accomplish the first by doing the second?
I think the books on your shelf are as much a form of self-expression as the clothes you wear. I’m always very conscious of this when I purchase books. Especially because I’m a slow reader, so a lot of books on the shelf are just waiting to be read.
“3 Stigmata” also happens to be my fave PKD book.
The admin for our division at work, takes her Zoom calls from her basement office with the background of a pool table full of dirty clothes with a Budweiser light above it. Four calls so far & it never changes.
You need a very keen eye to pick out that copy of David Irving's The War Path in Gove's book case. The Bell Curve is easier to spot. Atlas Shrugged is there, too. Also on the shelves, Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism, but also Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England by Anthony Julius and On the Eve: The Jews of Europe Before the Second World War by Bernard Wasserstein. Everybody has way too much time on their hands with these shutdowns.
Everyone must stash their editions of The Complete Far Side in the powder room.
I have two shelves and three piles of Derrida.
I always look at the books behind people and pause movies to look at any books that enter the frame.
"three piles of Derrida"
That's some classy chick bait.
I often notice the background people have in their TV interviews even before this Thing. One has to assume many of them carefully stage it to show what they want. Although people now that are not used to it might be slipping up. I did check my background for problematic -- read: embarrassing -- items before I started Zooming with co-workers.
My background visage consists of a Nagel print (not a naughty one), a stuffed armadillo, a Kenyan wooden mask, a vintage Winter in Egypt poster, the neck of an Ibanez guitar, and a 1929 Royal typewriter. Well, and an old Advent speaker and Old Milwaukee beer sign.
This all kind of reminds me of this (SFW) which I found hilarious.
The real reason to look at people's books to is to see if that person likes what you like. If the person does, then the other books become possible recommendations.
In movies, you do it to see if the props person had a sense of humor. There may be jokes. Or you may get a laugh out of the books the crew thought this character might like. Or you may think, "Nice!" Frames with lot of information--lots of outcomes!
This all kind of reminds me of this (SFW) which I found hilarious.
I wanna know why all the clocks in porn movies have stopped.
Sometimes a person videos himself in front of books that clearly weren't selected by him. In fact, I laughed out loud a couple weeks ago at a video where someone was speaking in front of a totally incongruous selection of books.
didn't read all the comments
is anyone gonna mention the bird?
is that a real bird or a statue?
OMG, that Lenny Bruce book contains THE N WORD, not just once but over and over.
Okay, boomer. Delete. Delete.
Al Roker was on that TV guide in the seinfeld clip you posted a few days ago. He was plump in the 90s. Did he get that band installed?
Derrida for chicks (I think it was the Postcard) was a hilarious capsule review from rhhardin. It's on my shelf and was enough impetus to get me to take it down, but I still haven't slogged through it yet.
I saw a similar story about winners and losers in interior design and celebrities' homes, and John Legend's was outstanding. He's also got a bookshelf by his piano, no books but a ton of Grammys.
Don't miss Derrida for guys, "Spurs." Skip the preface written by somebody else. Very short book, alternating French and English pages.
@Freeman Hunt:
I always look at the books behind people and pause movies to look at any books that enter the frame.
The contents of a bookshelf are discussed but never shown in a scene in Good Will Hunting. Will chastises Sean for reading "the wrong fucking books." He responds, "so what are the right fucking books?" Will demures at first but then suggests Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Sean asks how it compares to Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's a small window into Damon's political education.
At least Jacques Derrida had the benefit of being merely wrong. I'm pretty sure Jacques Lacan was a complete charlatan. He writes in the most convoluted way I've ever seen, and its primary effect seems to be to sound profound by saying the most obvious things in the most complicated ways.
three piles of Derrida.
Is that because he's thrice an asshoe?
If memory serves, Derrida was funny. Lacan, not funny.
There was a time when I had Mein Kampf, The communist manifesto, the Bible, and the Koran on my shelf. I still have last two. I recommend reading all of them.
“ The real reason to look at people's books to is to see if that person likes what you like. If the person does, then the other books become possible recommendations.”
That’s so wholesome.
J Farmer.
I forgot about that. I enjoyed Good Will Hunting when it first came out. (back when I went to the movies) I no longer support H-wood. Subtle Howard Zinn pimping is why I despise leftwing hollywood.
I am not worried about the stack of massive, OLD software manuals from years back that my co-workers can see behind me. Photoshop. Illustrator. AutoCAD. CompTIA A+. The only issue would be having to explain it was a phase I outgrew but never parted with the books.
In fact, a person could probably get a whole bunch of these very fat books cheap at a library sale. For a few bucks you could cover the entire background behind you. Boring computer manuals...no one will care and no one will ask.
However, still pondering getting a green screen and putting up the Hong Kong skyline or some such thing behing me.
"That's the one Philip K. Dick book that I read, loved, and found to be sufficient: "The 3 Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.""
On one hand, 3 Stigmata is sort-of typical of Philip K. Dick. So it is sufficient in that it gives a good flavor of what he is all about, but then you are missing his best works. Galactic Pot Healer, Martian Time-Slip and We Can Build You are thought provoking and just plain entertaining. I've read maybe 10 of his novels and a couple of short story collections and Stigmata ranks toward the bottom. His short stories are of interest if you've seen many of the movies made from them--just to see how Hollywood mangled perfectly good stories. Similarly for Blade Runner and The Man In The High Castle.
I thought 'electric sleep' was unfilmable, that's why ridley scott, chose a chandleresque template, to try to remedy it,
I have a theory: no one has ever read all of "Atlas Shrugged". This is based wholly on my personal experience. Got about 2/3 through and found it tediously repetitive, thematically, and the prose was mediocre at best. I didn't continue reading it, but didn't completely abandon it either - it sits on the shelf with the bookmark intact. I could start up again anytime. Which is nice.
I got as far as part of the galt monolog
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1257362968855089152?s=20
Well, stevew, so much for your theory. I read Atlas Shrugged. All of it. Loved it. No- she's not a great writer. But she was a great thinker who influenced generations of people. And, the longer I live the more it plays out in front of me.
Ayn Rand also had an interesting personal life. Not a standard to follow, but interesting.
Temujin: then mine is a theory of one, or at most a few. Oh well. I would add that I have no quarrel with Rand or her theories, Objectivism and such, and agree she was a great thinker. That is well established whether you agree with her or not. It's just that I got her message well before I got to the end of the book.
This subject reminds me of a funny essay, "English Lit(mus) by Lois Romano (reprinted in the humor anthology LAUGHING MATTERS, edited by Gene Shalit. It deals with the subject of evaluating people (particularly prospective lovers) on the basis of books on display in their personal libraries. Examples: "Herman Hesse is probably left over from college. It goes along with the ponytail. His ponytail." And: "Rod McKuen: instant disqualification from polite conversation in most parts of the civilized world."
I read the fountainhead in high school, for an essay contest, howard roark, is a thinly disguised frank Lloyd wright, crusading against the classicist consensus in architecture, which isn't exactly brutalist, but is one step behind that,
I've got the classical version of Hardin going on behind me. Nietzsche, Husserl, and Heidegger—mostly Heidegger.
@stevew: And I have read Atlas Shrugged three times over the years. First time I skimmed and skipped through Galt's speech. Second time I resolved to read all of Galt's speech, but failed. I skimmed parts. Third time, I read every word. I read a bit of the speech every day until I got through it. I guess I am exposing some nerdishness when I say that I think it is a great story.
one might see it as a predictive dystopia, which was rand's attempt to adapt the social conditions of pre revolutionary Russia to this country,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cia-watchdog-sitting-on-secret-house-report-allegedly-critical-of-brennans-role-in-russian-meddling-assessment_3337863.html
There's nothing wrong with David Irving's early Historical works Like: Dresden, PQ 17, even "The warpath". Then in the early 80s he turned into a kook. If he'd turned into a Pro-Communist Kook, he'd be rich and famous. but he turned into a pro-fascist kook, so he's been driven out of polite society, banned and censored. Got thrown in Jail for 2 years in Austria just for driving to a secret meeting to discuss "The Holocaust."
Remember: Its not whether you support a mass murdering totalitarian dictator. Its which one, that matters. Of course, stupid people think that if you don't foam at the mouth every you mention irving that means you support him. But that is incorrect.
I read The Fountainhead in high school and read some of Atlast Shrugged but had no desire to finish it. Ayn Rand, like Friedrich Hayek, was too much a product of her time. At her best, her work speaks to an individualist, nonconformist spirit opposing a tyrannical mob rule. At her worst, she speaks to egotists who believe the circumstances of their life are entirely of their creation. It is not surprising that the Randian hero often embodies the so called "dark triad" of personality traits and appeals to similar such people in the business world. Her radical individualism does not describe a way human society has ever been organized, and such a society is likely not even possible, even if it were preferable. Randians often make the same mistake as Rand did: presuming that the society most preferable to them is the most preferable society.
The Fountain Head reads better if you just imagine it as Fantasy/SF. Rand's heroes and heroines aren't real people, they're comic book superheros.
I fond Atlas shrugged unreadable. I went John Galt about half-way through.
Philip K. Dick was bad at choosing titles. For example, "Do androids dream of Electric Sheep?" is awful. Too bad he didn't think of the movie title "Blade Runner".
well frank Lloyd wright, was certainly more artist than businessman, so dump that scenario, he was a rebel a visionary, one that did claim tens of millions of dead. i'm sorry the sound of firing squads do agitate me,
the title refers to what would a synthetic person, reasonably imagine, in this post apocalyptic world, in the book this was a post nuclear scenario, that killed off animals and many people,
@rcocean:
Remember: Its not whether you support a mass murdering totalitarian dictator. Its which one, that matters. Of course, stupid people think that if you don't foam at the mouth every you mention irving that means you support him. But that is incorrect.
Exactly right. Regardless of his analysis, Irving has made significant contributions to WWII historiography, and any serious investigation of the period requires a review of his work.
I think the Irving case demonstrates a more fundamental problem. A very particular reading of the Second World War is part of our collective mythology. It must be acknowledged as a "good war" on the side of just and righteous causes. Just think about how much of WWII has become metaphor. Fascism. Genocide. Final solution. Concentration camps. Nationalism. Like Hitler. Chamberlain. Churchill. Appeasement. Munich. 1939. Much of modern Jewish political thought, part of the very foundation for Israel as a Jewish state, is the Shoah.
The contemporary world regularly ransacks the lexicon of the Second World War to describe an opponent or justify some birdbrained plan of action. The specter of "far-right leaders" in Europe is specifically meant to invoke the Third Reich and insinuate that "far-right" politics must somehow inexorably lead to genocide and extermination camps. Ironically, this position is quite similar to fascist thinking. It sees total war as always on the horizon and argues that societies must be organized to prepare for it. Rather than seeing the Second World War as an aberration arising from a particular set of historical circumstances, it is conceptualized as some kind of historical template that we are always at risk of repeating.
Al rocker had surgery and then kept it off with Keto.
"I think the Irving case demonstrates a more fundamental problem. A very particular reading of the Second World War is part of our collective mythology. It must be acknowledged as a "good war" on the side of just and righteous causes."
If you go back and read WW 2 history or watch films issued in the first 30 years after WW2, you'll see that none of that was really true. George rockwell was intereviewed by Playboy in the 1960's and gave speeches on college campuses. One of the biggest books questioning our involvement in WW 2 "America's Second Crusade" by, I think chamberlin, was published in 1950. its only AFTER the 1970's that discussing WW II in a negative light, got you called a Nazi and censored.
@narciso:
well frank Lloyd wright, was certainly more artist than businessman, so dump that scenario, he was a rebel a visionary, one that did claim tens of millions of dead. i'm sorry the sound of firing squads do agitate me,
As I said, "At her best, her work speaks to an individualist, nonconformist spirit opposing a tyrannical mob rule." Ayn Rand certainly speaks to an individualist spirit, and a lot of people relate to it on this level. If all humans were the kind of people interested by Ayn Ran, then the Randian world would be a plausible one.
Individualism versus collectivism is an inherent tension in human society, and societies are constantly adjudicating where and how to draw the line. Solutions that propose an extreme variant of either end should be avoided. What's called the "mixed economy" is essentially a balance of these two forces.
it's arguable that some tactics, like the carpet bombing directed by bomber harris, were ill advised, on the American side, the strategic bombing survey, that McNamara, nitze, and other were a part of, made similar conclusions, that doesn't mean the war itself was ignoble, the nature of the concentration club archipelago was very clear, now the soviets developed an almost parallel system with the gulag archipelago that soltzhenitsyn, bukovsky et al brought to light,
@rcocean:
its only AFTER the 1970's that discussing WW II in a negative light, got you called a Nazi and censored.
Similarly, the Holocaust was not a prominent them in the United States before that time. There is a claim that the Six Day War, and to a lesser extent the Yom Kippur War, help explain this. The contemporary State of Israel was founded on the Six Day War. Israel obtained control over long coveted tracts of land, particularly East Jerusalem, and this control is defended on a claim of just rewards from a defensive war. Invoking "never again" sentiment about the Holocaust and portraying Israelis as a small and vulnerable group threatened by a totalitarian exterminationism is part of this defense.
The standard narrative is that Egypt and Syria were on the verge of an invasion, and Israel reacted in a preemptive manner justified by legitimate self-defense concerns. The actual reality is a great deal more muddled. Israel and US intelligence had already concluded that the Arab forces were weak and disorganized and could likely be dispatched with in a matter of days. Israel was looking for a pretext to initiate hostilities. Direct provocation on the border with Syria was attempted. Egypt's troop movements sufficed. It involved enough ambiguity for Israel to respond. Unfortunately, it also involved millions of Arabs coming under Israeli control but who can never be considered citizens due to the demographic consequences. The defensive war argument is a crucial foundation in Israel's position regarding the status of the occupied territories. It is also why US diplomatic support for this position is crucial to Israel.
J. Farmer said...
Rather than seeing the Second World War as an aberration arising from a particular set of historical circumstances, it is conceptualized as some kind of historical template that we are always at risk of repeating.
It isn't aberrant. It is pretty much the template for every war. It just had some extra ideological labels applied to it and there were some technologies that allowed it to extend in a wider scope than previous wars.
The goals of war never change.
Just the methods and tactics.
The Good Guys have won every war in history because the winners write the history.
The funny part is your complete inability to accept this pattern. The Chicoms are losing their grip on power. Their obvious culpability in the COVID-19 virus has completely eroded the "Mandate of Heaven."
The only reason China does not go to war now is because they know they would get crushed. The only reason they would get crushed is because the US spends an inordinate amount of resources on defense.
Farmer: "The standard narrative is that Egypt and Syria were on the verge of an invasion, and Israel reacted in a preemptive manner justified by legitimate self-defense concerns. The actual reality is a great deal more muddled."
LOL
No. It isn't.
I have two shelves and three piles of Derrida.
Well, that explains it.
@Achilles:
The funny part is your complete inability to accept this pattern. The Chicoms are losing their grip on power. Their obvious culpability in the COVID-19 virus has completely eroded the "Mandate of Heaven."
Because I reject the notion that history can be understood as a set of cyclical patterns. It invariably leads to simplistic explanations because the details have to be truncated in order to fit the patterns. It's a similar problem with so called "comparative mythology." Rummaging through literature, finding bits of varying similarity, and then extrapolating from that a pattern is a highly dubious means of doing history. The entire existence of Judaica is a refutation to the notion that "winners write the history."
"As I said, 'At her best, her work speaks to an individualist, nonconformist spirit opposing a tyrannical mob rule.Ayn Rand certainly speaks to an individualist spirit, and a lot of people relate to it on this level. If all humans were the kind of people interested by Ayn Ran, then the Randian world would be a plausible one."
So a world in which people don't steal each other's stuff or threaten other people with violence is only plausible in which all human beings, everywhere, have read Ayn Rand?
@Drago:
LOL
No. It isn't.
Yes. It is.
But I appreciate you perfectly illustrating the Pavlovian response. It's such a matter of faith in contemporary American politics that it's declared uncritically, and any criticism of it is treated with suspicion. Even a very sympathetic account, like Michael Oren's Six Days of War, is more nuanced than the received wisdom.
David Irving is fascinating, detestable character, but it's misleading to give David Irving of the last few decades the credit of the historian who gained a decent reputation as a young man. His work evolved a lot.
@Bilwick:
So a world in which people don't steal each other's stuff or threaten other people with violence is only plausible in which all human beings, everywhere, have read Ayn Rand?
No. But "a world in which people don't steal each other's stuff or threaten other people with violence" is not plausible. That's my gripe with either a radical individualist or radical collectivist worldview. They are utterly utopian.
So it's a directional thing on a continuum, Farmer. The world can move towards more taking of stuff and threats, or towards less. Believing it can move towards less is not utopian. It's just optimistic.
@daskol:
The world can move towards more taking of stuff and threats, or towards less. Believing it can move towards less is not utopian. It's just optimistic.
"taking of stuff and threats" are too broad a construction. What's being taken? By whom? For what? Threats of what against who over what? The productive capacity of Saudi Arabia being treated as the personal possession of the Al Saud family is not the same as redistribution in the Nordic countries, even though both could be described as "taking of stuff." Threats of force against people willing to kill, molest, or steal is not the same as threats of force against people for speaking or practicing a religion or being a member of an identity group.
Oh. It's a Farmer thread. Well, c'est la vie.
So it's a directional thing on a continuum, Farmer.
Not exactly. All social interaction is some synthesis of individualist and collectivist aims. It is unsurprising that more heterogeneous societies will tend towards more individualism than collectivism compared to more homogeneous ones.
Oh. It's a Farmer thread. Well, c'est la vie.
Flattery masquerading as snark.
The UK/USA Establishment celebrates Howard Zinn, a communist who supported Stalin and his crimes at least till 1956, and despises and hated David Irving, a patriotic Englishman who thinks Hitler and fascists weren't 100% bad.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
Flattery IS snark.
oh never mind
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/05/04/biden-calls-for-senate-to-release-any-record-of-reade-complaint-but-how-convenient-another-problem/
rcocean: Sci-fi lends itself to evocative titles ("The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth", "We all Died at Breakaway Station", etc), some of them unforgettably nightmarish, like Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". Me, I always liked that title of Dick's, used to wonder about it when I needed to think about something other than Ellison.
One thing about books as backdrops, especially in Hollywood, once you've seen a law library it's very easy to recognize state and federal case reporters issued by the standardized service publisher (not to mention other legal reference works like CJS, ALS and the like) and you see them all in virtually every Hollywood bookshelf scene, no matter how incongruous a set of legal references might be in the context of the fictional library's owner. Now everyone's moved to computerized research and the hardbound sets must go cheap.
. . . David Irving, a patriotic Englishman who thinks Hitler and fascists weren't 100% bad.
What a bummer for Irving. I mean, everyone knows Hitler and the Nazis were only 99.999 percent bad.
no good deed goes unpunished,
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/04/giorgi-rtskhiladze-michael-cohen-mueller-kompromat/
Flattery IS snark.
Touché.
I always thought flattery was the highest form of flattery.
Like revenge is the best revenge.
there should be better science fiction adapted, not the trash that ends up on the sy fy channel, annihilation, was interesting take,
https://factordaily.com/alfred-bester-stars-my-destination-cyberpunk/
strazynski was largely inspired by this fellow,
Annihilation was pretty good. It inspired me to read "The Southern Reach Trilogy" it was based upon. The first book of the trilogy, which is the basis for the movie, is good. But it goes downhill after that. When I finished the third and final book I was actually angry with the author. I felt as though I'd been duped. I was really pissed off.
Like revenge is the best revenge.
Well, I used to think revenge was a dish best served cold. Now I know it means getting back at someone.
Gazpacho
"I always thought flattery was the highest form of flattery. "
I know that butt smooching is the lowest form of flattery, so at least we have it bounded.
@Howard:
Gazpacho
I hate cold soups. Vichyssoise included. The texture is so off-putting.
We forget that wwii-Europe was not thought of as a good war at the time by most Americans. We had no national interest in it. Fdr had promised to keep us out of it. All while giving England munitiond ships and other weaponry. All for free, to be repaid some time in the future.
We invaded iceland while we were still claiming to be neutral.
We patrolled the North Atlantic directing the British navy where to find the u-boats. Later we went further, bombing subs from the air. Later still fdr ordered our navy to "sink on sight" any german vessel.
We were seriously at war with Germany for 2 years before 12/41.
Germany only declared war on us because we had already been engaged in war with us. Read their declaration of war.
In november 41,something like 80 of America was against our involvement. Fdr won in 40 on a platform of staying out of Europe's wars.
He lied.
For all the propaganda about flooding recruiting offices, more than 60% of us armed forces were draftees.
Good war? Bullshit. We had no business getting involved. But it was the only way fdr could think of to end the Depression.
John Henry
Al Roker is a TDS-infected tool.
I used to arrange my books on the shelves in my living room to maybe "impress" my guests. But then I got sober and grew up. Now my bookcase looks less like my guest bathroom (clean, neat and presented well) than my master bath (arranged and kept exactly how I want it without regard to others)
THEOLDMAN
I have a collection of books on the subject of comic books and also The Marx Bros. Since my daughter won't want them, I am planning on donating them to fans I have met on Facebook groups featuring those subjects. The library just sells donations.
"For all the propaganda about flooding recruiting offices, more than 60% of us armed forces were draftees."
Yep, I think all the "Greatest Generation ever" propaganda has overdone how enthusiastic Americans were to go out and fight - especially in Europe. The Japs had attacked us, so many wanted to fight them, but the European War seemed like another replay of WW 1 with Hitler standing in the for the Kaiser. And if even if they wanted to fight, most Americans wanted to stay out of the infantry.
Bob Dole is probably a good example. He didn't rush out and join in 1942, he stayed in College because he wanted to be a Doctor. When the draft age was lowered from 20 to 18, he tried to join the Navy and was rejected. So, he then enlisted in the Army Medical Corps - April 1943. Then joined the Army Student Corps but that got disbanded, and he ended up in the Infantry. He decided if he was going overseas, it'd be better as an officer, so he went to OCS. He arrived in Italy in Jan 1945, and was wounded after a very short time in combat.
Most of my books live in my room--along with the wargames, with which they overlap a lot. Need lots of room for proper study of what happened, and to get the most out of whatiffery.
Most visitors only see, if they bother to look, the few score volumes we keep in an heirloom glass-fronted bookcase in the living room, or the odd lots we haven't gotten rid of in the den.
My pride is the handy volume 11th ed. Britannica (1911) with three-volume update 12th ed. (covering the exciting events up to 1922). It's an heirloom too.
Anyone judging me on living-room display would get a profoundly imcomplete picture.
Narr
Angelfood McSpade was one of our favorite Crumb characters
“Good war? Bullshit. We had no business getting involved. But it was the only way fdr could think of to end the Depression.“
We had good cause to go to war against Japan, scrap steel embargo none the less. Japan wanted to be Asia’s slave master. Germany was foolish to declare war against the us after pearl h. Germany was foolish for not remaining Stalin’s pal and staying on the western front and in africa. Germany was foolish for depending on great engineers but do nothing physicists. War did end the depression.
@Narr:
My pride is the handy volume 11th ed. Britannica (1911) with three-volume update 12th ed. (covering the exciting events up to 1922). It's an heirloom too.
There is a cult like following surrounding the 1911 edition. Supposedly, it represents the pinnacle of intellectual self-confidence, free of hedging and PC ass covering. I’ve never read any of it myself, but that’s the reputation.
For all the propaganda about flooding recruiting offices, more than 60% of us armed forces were draftees.
We were drafting before the war started. After Pearl Harbor, men did flood recruiting offices, but the military couldn't process all the volunteers, so eventually they switched over to relying on the draft. The military wanted a reliable flow of new personnel that they could systematically process, so men between 18 and 38 who were physically fit were told to wait for their number to come up. 17-year-olds and men over 38 could still volunteer.
War is war, and up close it isn't pretty. But if you pull back a bit, you can find different types of war. Not all wars have the same characteristics as the Second World War. That template didn't fit most of the wars fought in recent decades.
It's "The Scholars Edition." It's the primary source for the imperial West's self-image at the height of its power. Self-confidence barely begins to describe it. (The PC was all period-appropriate, as PC always is or it wouldn't be PC.)
The contributors were the who's who of Anglo-American scholarship on any given subject, and they treated every subject very seriously. If you would know what was thought important you could do a lot worse than the EB11.
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up early to return this loaner heart-monitor, but I'll throw out, in light of comments here, that scenarios of artful-dodging to keep us out of major wars are as easy to contrive as brilliant strategies to win wars faster than the dummies who were alive at the time could.
Curse sainted Woodrow and Franklin if you must, but maybe--just maybe--Kaiser Bill and Der Furor couldn't have been sweet-talked or reasoned with. Some appetites grow with eating,
especially arrogant Kraut appetites. On this I think Niall Ferguson is on shaky ground with old AJP Taylor.
Narr
I'll see you tomorrow
@Narr:
Curse sainted Woodrow and Franklin if you must, but maybe--just maybe--Kaiser Bill and Der Furor couldn't have been sweet-talked or reasoned with. Some appetites grow with eating,
especially arrogant Kraut appetites. On this I think Niall Ferguson is on shaky ground with old AJP Taylor.
I agree. Buchanan's book was the last revisionist book I read, and while it made some interesting points, I was never fully convince of its thesis. Ferguson's book on the First World War, The Pity of War, is an embarrassingly inept attempt at counterfactual history, though I am much less sympathetic to the WWI than WWII. That said, I don't think it's so much the nuts and bolts of WWII historiography but the mythology of WWII that has come to dominate our public conscious.
The eight biographies of Hitler and one of Goering on my bookshelf might open me to some criticism. Five biographies of George Patton would also upset some.
"On one hand, 3 Stigmata is sort-of typical of Philip K. Dick. So it is sufficient in that it gives a good flavor of what he is all about, but then you are missing his best works. Galactic Pot Healer, Martian Time-Slip and We Can Build You are thought provoking and just plain entertaining. I've read maybe 10 of his novels and a couple of short story collections and Stigmata ranks toward the bottom."
Most hard-core Dick-heads would rank THREE STIGMATA as among his masterpieces and GALACTIC POT-HEALER and WE CAN BUILD YOU as...NOT among his masterpieces, (particularly WCBY). (I've been reading him for over 40 years.) THREE STIGMATA was the second novel I read, (following THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE). I find that Dick's authorial voice is plain on first reading, apparently unadorned, but after reading two or three of his novels, his voice becomes immediately apparent as distinctly his, and it is (for me) entrancing. (His voice is a different thing than the quality of his prose, which ranged from occasionally poor to superior, mostly hovering somewhere between these poles. He was a pulp writer--that is, his books mostly appeared as paperback originals--and he wrote to make a living. He turned out several novels a year for a good stretch of years. At that pace, it's miraculous how good his prose was more often than not.) Even though he "made his living writing," he was essentially poverty-stricken for most of his career, finding increasing financial stability and success only in his last years.
He also wrote several non-science fiction novels, all but one of which were unpublished during is lifetime. Posthumously, they were all eventually published. I cherish them as much as I do his best science fiction novels.
"Philip K. Dick was bad at choosing titles. For example, "Do androids dream of Electric Sheep?" is awful. Too bad he didn't think of the movie title "Blade Runner"."
His titles could be hit or miss. Sometimes his books appeared with titles other than his original titles, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. (For example, his original title for MARTIAN TIME-SLIP was ALL WE MARSMEN, and it appeared under that title serialized in two parts in a pulp SF magazine. ) DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP is a great title, perfectly reflecting the themes of the book. BLADE RUNNER is a stupid title, superficially zippy sounding but utterly meaningless.
"The only reason China does not go to war now is because they know they would get crushed."
How about they don't have any interest in going to war?
How about "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" versus “Total Recall”
"How about 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' versus 'Total Recall'”
Dick's title for the original short story is clearly the superior title.
@Bilwick:
So a world in which people don't steal each other's stuff or threaten other people with violence is only plausible in which all human beings, everywhere, have read Ayn Rand?
No. But "a world in which people don't steal each other's stuff or threaten other people with violence" is not plausible. That's my gripe with either a radical individualist or radical collectivist worldview. They are utterly utopian."
So until every single person on earth embraces the non-aggression principle, it's okay to threaten people and steal their stuff? How conveeeenient for people like you!
"So until every single person on earth embraces the non-aggression principle, it's okay to threaten people and steal their stuff? How conveeeenient for people like you!"
It's one thing to misunderstand ambiguous statements, but to so misunderstand what J. Farmer said is either a sign of stunning thickness, a result of herculean effort, or a lie made to make a (stupid) insult.
Farmer in no way says or implies that "it's okay to threaten people and steal their stuff." He points out, as adults must often do with children, that there will never be a world in which humans do not threaten others or try to steal their stuff. That is, it is an observation, not a statement of approval.
What I want to know is are the books filed in diminishing heights? Or increasing heights?
Post a Comment