A bestiary of hate

And why it is increasingly important to provide Amazon reviews for books you really like.

Now, some authors firmly believe you should never engage with a critic of your books.  They’ve got a sound basis for this belief, because most authors are sensitive little wallflowers who can’t bear criticism, so when they do respond to it, they tend to overdo it a little.  Or a lot.  The prime example, of course, being Laurell K. Hamilton, whose epic hissy fit was ironically more entertaining than any of the novels she inflicted upon the general public.  Her predecessor in the sexy corpse genre, Anne Rice, also provided another well-regarded classic in the annals of authorial peevishness, albeit one handicapped by the virtue of it showing at least some signs of the sanity entirely missing from Hamilton’s masterpiece.

Given that I have been the beneficiary of the constant attentions of various anklebiters and more substantive critics for some years now, I am considerably less upset than most writers when it comes to negative readers.  They’re bound to come, particularly when an author is as free with his own opinions as I am.  But that doesn’t mean that I am any less inclined to permit reader absurdities go unchallenged, particularly when they are putting them out there in public in an attempt to influence the decisions of potential readers to give my books a shot or not.  Also, given that I am a polemicist of some notoriety, I am more conscious than most of how some purported “reviews” are nothing more than polemics by other means.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion of every book.  Tastes and intellects differ considerably.  But no one has a right to not have their opinions mocked or criticized.  Now, most of those who have read and reviewed A THRONE OF BONES have expressed a generally favorable opinion of it; some have even written of it in a superlative manner.  Most consider it to have surpassed their expectations.  Not these three reviewers, however, who claim to have found literally nothing of merit in the novel:

THE DELICATE CHRISTIAN FLOWER

“I was looking forward to reading it. I was sorely disappointed to find
profanity, and vulgarity and a few other things I found objectionable.
If you are into Christian fiction, this is not the book for you.”

Translation: “All books with bad words are bad.  Don’t read them.”

My response: hey, at least her opinion is based on fact and is reasonably consistent, given that she also gives a glowing five-star review to a children’s Bible that leaves out that unimportant bit about Jesus’s death.

THE EVERYDAY ANKLEBITER

“This book is bad. So bad that I was moved to leave my first amazon
review and I couldn’t just put it down and move on to the next book in
my pile, I had to move on to something I already knew was exceptional,
like Tolkien. Since zero stars is not an option, I can at least take
some comfort in the fact that I had to give “A Throne of Bones” one star
in that it pushed me into something more worthwhile.”

Translation: “I hate the author, so I’ll just fling some imaginary crap and hope it sticks.”

My response: Trolls are going to troll and anklebiters are going to snap at ankles wherever they can.  Keep in mind this first-time “reviewer” appears to be the same guy who was dumb enough to claim, on this blog, that the novel was a structural imitation of Gibbon – whose work covered the imperial Roman period some 200 years after the Republican era I utilized – and a literary imitation of R. Scott Bakker.  The fact that the “reviewer” is a fan of Bakker’s who is still bitter about my failure to genuflect before Bakker in the nihilism debate is, no doubt, entirely unrelated to his review….

The strange thing about The Everyday Anklebiter is that he apparently has never stopped to think that there are thousands of readers of this blog who are perfectly able to do what he has done in purposefully tanking the ratings of authors they don’t like.  This sort of negative review isn’t merely abusive, it is dangerous to the entire review system, given its potential to start a reviews war.

If you have an Amazon account, I would encourage you to report this as abuse. I have already done so.  Personal vendettas belong on the blogs, they have no place on public book review sites.

THE OVER-HIS-HEAD GUY

“The author show no imagination. He basically just copies imperial Rome
at the time of the Roman Catholic church. Neither one of which I find
entertaining in a fantasy setting. If I wanted to read about Roman
Legions and the Church I’d buy a history book. I’ll get through it
eventually and maybe it will get better but if the first 20% is this bad
I can’t imagine how it’s going to redeem itself. Don’t waste your money
or your time. It’s the worst book I’ve ever read and I’ve read about
everything.”

Translation: tl;dr

My response: (laughs)  Imperial Rome copied at the time of the Roman Catholic Church… that pretty much says it all.  But it least it is an honest review, as clearly, if the idea of combining Rome and fantasy bores you, A THRONE OF BONES is almost surely the most boring book you could ever hope to read. 

No book is for everyone because we all have different tastes.  Some read fiction, some don’t.  Some love history, some find it tedious in the extreme.  But these reviews should help underline the importance of reviewing the books you like, especially those books you love.  So, later today, I’ll be posting a review of a book I recently read that I really liked, and which I would recommend reading.


Krugman the revisionist

Paul Krugman seems to think that if he keeps rewriting economic history, he’ll somehow retroactively change what actually took place:

It’s that time again: the annual meeting of the American Economic Association and affiliates, a sort of medieval fair that serves as a marketplace for bodies (newly minted Ph.D.’s in search of jobs), books and ideas. And this year, as in past meetings, there is one theme dominating discussion: the ongoing economic crisis.

This isn’t how things were supposed to be. If you had polled the economists attending this meeting three years ago, most of them would surely have predicted that by now we’d be talking about how the great slump ended, not why it still continues.

So what went wrong? The answer, mainly, is the triumph of bad ideas.

It’s tempting to argue that the economic failures of recent years prove that economists don’t have the answers. But the truth is actually worse: in reality, standard economics offered good answers, but political leaders — and all too many economists — chose to forget or ignore what they should have known.

Three years ago.  That would have been 2010… which was several months after I published The Return of the Great Depression, which explained that the issue was credit inflation, not insufficient demand.  Unlike all those economists, I also declared that we would be in the middle of an economic depression now, which is the case, even though few seem to consciously be aware of it due to the various statistical shenanigans.

And three years later, after Obama passed a BIGGER stimulus plan than the one for which Paul Krugman himself called for, Krugman is still trying to claim that the mainstream economists were not incorrect, while repeating his previous and incorrect diagnosis.


Race and guns: part 1

David Cole of the New York Times argues that young urban blacks pay the cost for the right to bear arms:

Gun rights defenders argue that gun laws don’t reduce violence, noting
that many cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws.
But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local
laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states.
Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response. 
A cynic might propose resurrecting the Black Panthers to heighten white
anxiety as the swiftest route to breaking the logjam on gun reform. I
hope we are better than that. If the nation were to view the everyday
tragedies that befall young black and Latino men in the inner cities
with the same sympathy that it has shown for the Newtown victims, there
would be a groundswell of support not just for gun law reform, but for
much broader measures. 
If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights, it’s not enough
to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private
gun sales or ban assault weapons. In addition to such national measures,
meaningful reform must include initiatives directed to where gun
violence is worst: the inner cities. Aggressive interventions by police
and social workers focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic
investment, better schools and more after-school and job training
programs, are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun
rights entail. 
To tweak the National Rifle Association’s refrain, “guns don’t kill
people; indifference to poverty kills people.” We can’t in good
conscience keep making young black men pay the cost of our right to bear
arms. 
However, Cole assumes a causation that simply is not supported by the facts at hand.  Below is a chart I prepared based on the state-by-state offense rates, per 100k population, comparing black homicide to non-black homicide.  The source was the commenter Silver’s comment on a recent Steve Sailer post, derived from a 2009 FBI report.  The average state homicide rate is 17.3 per 100k for the black population and 2.5 per 100k for the non-black population.

As Silver notes, the FBI information cannot be used to directly compare black and white homicide rates, since the non-black rate combines the white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian rates.  I will attempt to sort out some of those rates in the next post on this subject, but even a casual glance will suffice to show that the states with the highest non-black homicide rates, the District of Columbia (9.1), Nevada (5.2), Arizona (4.4), and California (4.3) tends to coincide with higher levels of Hispanic population.

If Cole’s thesis was correct, we would have to find that gun ownership and poverty are vastly higher among the black population than among the other U.S. populations.  But this is clearly not the case with regards to gun ownership, since 44% of whites own guns compared to 27% of blacks, and the Hispanic poverty rate is 26.6%, nearly equal to the black poverty rate of 27.4%.  Therefore, we can not only refute his argument that gun rights entail violence by comparing international crime statistics, but also conclusively show that his “necessary” recommendations for reducing violence are unrelated to the causal problem at hand, and as a result, extremely unlikely to reduce it in any substantive manner.


Hesse and Spengler

Now, I could be completely off-base here, but in reading the following passage, I was left with the very distinct impression that reading Spengler very likely inspired, in some way, Hermann Hesse’s creation of the magnificent Glass Bead Game.

“Who amongst them realizes that between the Differential Calculus and the dynastic principle of politics in the age of Louis XIV, between the Classical city-state and the Euclidean geometry, between the space-perspective of Western oil-painting and the conquest of space by railroad, telephone and long-range weapon, between contrapuntal music and credit economics, there are deep uniformities? Yet, viewed from this morphological standpoint, even the humdrum facts of politics assume a symbolic and even a metaphysical character, and — what has perhaps been impossible hitherto — things such as the Egyptian administrative system, the Classical coinage, analytical geometry, the cheque, the Suez Canal, the book-printing of the Chinese, the Prussian Army, and the Roman road-engineering can, as symbols, be made uniformly understandable and appreciable.

“But at once the fact presents itself that as yet there exists no theory-enlightened art of historical treatment. What passes as such draws its methods almost exclusively from the domain of that science which alone has completely disciplined the methods of cognition, viz., physics,and thus we imagine ourselves to be carrying on historical research when we are really following out objective connexions of cause and effect….

“Nature is the shape in which the man of higher Cultures synthesizes and interprets the immediate impressions of his senses. History is that from which his imagination seeks comprehension of the living existence of the world in relation to his own life, which he thereby invests with a deeper reality. Whether he is capable of creating these shapes, which of them it is that dominates his waking consciousness, is a primordial problem of all human existence.”

I should be very interested to learn if Hesse ever happened to read Spengler prior to his writing Das Glaspernspiel.


Creeping out from under their rocks

The advocates of unlimited government are beginning to sense that their long-sought victory over the concept of limited government is finally within sight:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are
reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is
broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on
obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and
downright evil provisions…

it is hard to take seriously the claim by the
Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state
of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our
sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos
or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and
prosper.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands.
Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and
protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or
property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We
should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not
obligation. 

Make no mistake, getting rid of the Constitution has always been the penultimate goal of the Left.  Everything they have done, from expanding the franchise to women and younger voters to changing the demographic makeup of the electorate and buying off the elderly, has been with this object in mind.  Unlimited government is the goal, and even though the Constitution is mostly honored in its breach these days, it is still a reminder that the real America, the historical America, is a nation of laws and not men.


NFL wildcard day one

AD is the best running back in the league, but Arian Foster is simply a pleasure to watch.  He’s so silky smooth; I can’t believe anyone who saw him run in college didn’t see fit to draft him.  Perhaps it was because he’s in the mode of Marcus Allen or Gale Sayers in that he doesn’t even look like he’s trying.

Ponder sitting isn’t really a big deal.  The Packers were going to stack nine in the box to stop AD anyhow and it wasn’t as if he was going to beat them with his arm.  It should be interesting to see what Webb can do.  If nothing else, he can play-fake to AD and then take off running himself.

Skol Vikes!


Unintended consequences

Ex-burglars see public disclosure problems:

“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw,
65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than
3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s.
“Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when
you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

I think there could potentially be some positive effects from the  Journal-News’s identification of legal local gun owners.  A few home invasions taking place in homes known to be gunless should suffice to make the point concerning the importance of gun ownership in modern society.


Spenglerian decline

Robert Merry writes of the decline of the West as prophesied by Oswald Spengler 91 years ago in The National Interest:

But modern Westerners—and Americans in particular—might want to
ponder the implications of Spengler’s prediction that the first nation
of the West would lead that civilization into an era of imperialism in
corollary with serious erosions in its democratic structures. Is it
possible that the mystical German thinker was right about that, just as
he was right in so many other predictions regarding Western behavioral
and cultural patterns? And isn’t the great foreign-policy debate of our
time—whether America should continue its post–Cold War policy of
interventionism in the name of American exceptionalism and Western
universalism; or whether it should abandon that mission in favor of a
more measured exercise of its military and economic power—fundamentally a
debate over whether Spengler had it right?

What’s interesting about today’s foreign-policy debates is the
disconnection between the country’s national leaders and the populace at
large. The Republican Party is dominated by a neoconservative
sensibility that favors widespread American involvement in overseas
places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iran, while the
Democratic Party is influenced heavily by a Wilsonian sensibility of
moral imperative that often leads to the same interventionist advocacy,
though sometimes for different reasons. And yet public-opinion surveys
show that the American people harbor strong reservations about such
interventionist vigor of either stripe.

Thus, it sometimes seems as if America is on autopilot as it moves
haltingly but with seemingly inexorable force toward ever-greater
involvement in the world even as discomfort increases within the
electorate. But what about Spengler’s corollary prediction that the
West’s democratic forms will erode as it fulfills its civilizational
push to empire? Certainly, there is no popular sentiment for such a
thing. Yet here too we see signs that the country is headed in that
direction, reflected in a growing tendency toward arrogation of power on
the part of the nation’s executive, at the expense of Congress, and
Congress’s supine acquiescence in this trend. It’s seen also in the
Federal Reserve’s remarkable power grab of recent years whereby it has
circumvented the congressional appropriations process in making funds
available to banks to execute its “quantitative easing” policies of
loose money. Again, Congress has quietly accepted this incursion into
its constitutional domain without so much as a whimper.

And so we come to the truly haunting question that confronts America
in these times of growing global instability—whether, as the last nation
of the West, America is destined to fulfill Spengler’s vision of
hegemonic zeal mixed with a push toward dictatorship. Here’s where the
natural aversion to Spengler’s dogmatic determinism will likely come
into play. The answer is no, America’s future is in American hands. But
Spengler’s audacious work stands as a great warning to Americans bent on
protecting the hallowed civic institutions established at the founding
of their Republic. The era of Western cultural health is dead, and it
died pretty much as Spengler predicted it would. And no doubt his study
of previous great civilizations did in fact accurately identify
pressures and forces that emerge at particular points in civilizational
development and push toward empire and Caesarism. This push can be
resisted by a free people dedicated to the protection of their
institutions of old. But they won’t be protected if events are placed on
autopilot. The American impulse toward imperialism will prevail if it
is not rebuffed consciously by the American people and their leaders.
And if it prevails it will leave a tattered democratic republic in its
wake. Then Oswald Spengler will have the last laugh.

I haven’t read Spengler’s magnum opus yet, although I intend to do so once I finish the very good Waugh novel that I am presently reading.  (Scoop is, in its own small way, a chronicle of decline too.) However, it will come as no surprise to most of you that I have reached similar conclusions; it is always a little disconcerting to discover that one’s legitimately original theses were not only anticipated before one was born, but anticipated by a man who didn’t have the advantage of literal decades of events from which to judge.  Spengler was on the other side of the Western civilizational peak from us, and yet from what I read in Merry’s long article, many of the conclusions he reached based on logic are quite similar to the observations I and various others have made based on events.

Even the most die-hard feminist should be at least a little troubled by the way a man from the pre-feminist era was able to correctly predict the way feminism has led to increased authoritarianism and concerned that he will be similarly correct about its link to civilizational decline. I doubt this will be enough to cause any of them to rethink their devotion to their poisonous ideology; feminists are not known for their introspection so much as their solipsisim, after all.

And besides, feminism is less the cause than the symptom.  It may happen to be the particular mechanism by which the West falls, but given the fate of the past great civilizations, if it had not been that mechanism, it would simply have been another.

I do find Merry’s declaration that “America’s future is in American hands” to be more than a little facile, however.  This is manifestly not the case, not with all three branches of government increasingly and disproportionately populated by second- and third-generation immigrants, and an electorate that has never had less cultural and intellectual connection to the American political tradition.  I don’t know yet what Spengler has to say about alien governance and mass immigration, but based on my own knowledge of civilizational decline, I suspect the fact that America’s future is not actually in American hands will tend to support the applicability of his theory of decline to the present situation.


More questions at Sandy Hook

Lanza didn’t even have an assault rifle:

After two weeks of media reports that a .223 AR-15
Bushmaster was found in the trunk of Lanza’s car, gun aficionados point
out that the rifle is not a Bushmaster, nor even an AR-class assault
weapon. Gun experts say that the weapon shown in an NBC News report is some kind of shotgun. 
Another interesting aspect of the news report pointed out by law
enforcement commenters is that the officer seems to be completely
mishandling evidence, possibly destroying valuable fingerprints and
other clues. Law enforcement commenters have indicated that proper
procedure might call for the trunk being sealed with evidence tape and
the entire car transported to a main crime lab for examination and
evidence gathering, such as dusting for prints.
This follows a bewildering change of story from the authorities as to what weapons were actually used in the shooting.
At
this point, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question if Lanza had
anything to do with the shootings beyond being one of the victims of
the real shooters.  But what about those grief-stricken parents
And why is the media still going on about assault rifles when they have
nothing to do with what supposedly happened at Sandy Hook?

I
was entirely willing to reserve judgment, but the inexplicable
anomalies are rapidly piling up again.  The pattern is readily apparent
and given the facts at hand, Occam’s Razor increasingly suggests a false
flag.  I don’t understand why anyone finds it hard to believe there are
elements in the US government who don’t hesitate to murder US citizens,
given that the Obama administration openly asserts its legal right to kill citizens at will without due process.

Let’s engage in a little outlandish legal conjecture and assume that the shootings were real.  What, one wonders, would have prevented the administration from legally placing the
children of Sandy Hook elementary school on its secret kill list and then ordering their assassination?


Perceptive to a point

Sam Harris writes what is a surprisingly good article on guns and gun control, at least for the first three-quarters of the article:

Coverage of the Newtown tragedy and its aftermath has been generally
abysmal. In fact, I have never seen the “liberal media” conform to
right-wing caricatures of itself with such alacrity. I have read
articles in which literally everything said about firearms and
ballistics has been wrong. I have heard major newscasters mispronounce
the names of every weapon and weapons manufacturer more challenging than
“Colt.” I can only imagine the mirth it has brought gun-rights zealots
to see “automatic” and “semi-automatic” routinely confused, or to hear a
major news anchor ominously declare that the shooter had been armed
with a “Sig Sauzer” pistol. This has been more than embarrassing. It has
offered a thousand points of proof that “liberal elites” don’t know
anything about what matters when bullets start flying….

Most liberals responded derisively to the NRA’s suggestion that having
armed and vetted men and women in our schools could save lives.  Some
pointed to a public-service announcement put out by the city of Houston
(funded by the Department of Homeland Security), in which the
possibility of having guns on the scene was never discussed. Several
commentators held up this training video in support of the creed “More
guns are not the answer.” Please take a few minutes to watch this footage. Then try to imagine how a few armed civilians could respond during an attack of this kind. To help your imagination along, watch this short video,
in which a motel clerk carrying a concealed weapon shoots an armed
robber. The situation isn’t perfectly analogous—the wisdom of using
deadly force in what might be only a robbery is at least debatable. But
is it really so difficult to believe that the shooter might have been
helpful during an incident of the sort depicted in Houston?

Unfortunately, after that very good start, he then hits the home stretch and goes badly awry with regards to the Second Amendment:

One of the greatest impediments to actually solving the riddle of guns
in our society is the pious concern that many people have about the
intent of the Second Amendment. It should hardly need to be said that
despite its brilliance and utility, the Constitution of the United
States was written by men who could not possibly have foreseen every
change that would occur in American society in the ensuing centuries.
Even if the Second Amendment guaranteed everyone the right to possess
whatever weapon he or she desired (it doesn’t), we have since invented
weapons that no civilian should be allowed to own. In fact, it can be
easily argued that original intent of the Second Amendment had nothing
to do with the right of self-defense—which remains the ethical case to
be made for owning a firearm. The amendment seems to have been written
to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by
maintaining their militias. Given the changes that have occurred in our
military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an
AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against
totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed
forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think
your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a
black helicopter to sell you.

It never ceases to astonish me that a document written by a group of individuals who successfully engaged in an armed rebellion against their own government is so often interpreted to mean literally everything but what it quite clearly means. Harris reveals his customary ignorance of history here; I would recommend that he consider more closely the complete inability of the US military to confiscate the weaponry of the Afghan people and its relative vulnerability in the USA compared to its bases in Afghanistan.

I’d also recommend that he think hard about the obvious lesson of Oslo.  The hundreds of thousands of caches of small arms throughout America will not suffice to defend any one individual from the armed forces of the United States, but then, what is defending the armed forces of the United States from millions of armed individuals?