@Ethan's banner p


Quality assurance

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 March 18 17:38:59 UTC


User ID: 2275


Quality assurance

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 March 18 17:38:59 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2275

I think the point of the Motte is that such opinions can be expressed within reason. If you think something needs to be addressed then why not do it yourself?

I've lived an entirely straightlaced life and have zero interest even in marijuana. I'm not interested in drugs per se. What I am interested in is the apparently mind-opening power of psychedelics. Aldous Huxley's essay "The Doors to Perception" has once again made me curious. For those of you who have experimented with mescaline or whatever else, have these experiences changed you deeply and permanently? Would even taking small amounts grant you clarity or creativity without some terrible drawbacks?

I think of Carl Jung's advice, to "beware of unearned wisdom," and I think that expresses a healthy conservatism about these things. But then again, millions of people have used caffeine and nicotine both recreationally or for work. People now use marijuana for medicine. So why not use psychedelics for whatever positive effects they bring? I also think of people having bad trips or frying their brains. My mother grew up in the 70s and recalls a few people who made themselves permanently insane through some wacky experiments or other. I think ultimately it's better to leave well enough alone, but I'd like to hear different views.

I think there's an earnestness to good adventure movies which no amount of navel-gazey arthouse stuff can match. Sure, people tell themselves that the latter kinds of movies are more realistic or incisive about the human condition. But that's a cheat, really. Top Gun shows its artifice on its sleeve, and asks of us that we believe in heroes. And of course heroes exist. How could we have been so blind, with our vain and subtle navel-gazing? Top Gun clarifies the obvious truths about living, and does it in a way which delights people. That probably takes a lot more skill than putting a clever idea to screen poorly. I will gladly side with the plebians here.

I'm very quick to judge music based on, like, the first minute. I don't think that's unreasonable as a song's beginning sets the tone for pretty much the whole thing.

his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies

What makes you say this? Plenty of Hindus actually believe in God, as do plenty of American conservatives.

I think the recommendation is to drink enough to loosen your inhibitions. Not enough to get drunk.

Putt putt is classic, if a little cheesy. But I think that can be worked to your advantage.

Chicks rather enjoy being sex objects

I think so, too. I think women often want excuses to show off their clothes or bodies. They're very coy about admitting these things even though it's obvious to all.

Where are you meeting these women?


I'm near Cambridge. When I first saw it I knew it was a good date idea. Of course, coffee or ice-cream or lunch are easy to tack on afterward, especially if the day is hot and we want a break from the weather. So changing venues shouldn't be an issue.

I'd be interested. Will there be one topic per month on which members write their pieces? Or do members get full discretion on what to write about every time?

What are some great first date ideas? What worked for you guys? Previously I've taken girls to the museum and I think that's fine -- you can always talk about the art if conversation stalls, and it segues very well into getting coffee or iced-cream afterward. Part of me is worried that it's too boring or conventional though -- maybe something with some light activity involved?

On that note, I've recently moved to the UK so punting doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a date -- Lord knows I've seen plenty of couples doing it near my neck of the woods.

Just started Frank: The Making of a Legend by James Kaplan, about Frank Sinatra. It's the first biography of a celebrity I've read with any attention. I think I hold some deep feeling that musicians' lives aren't as worthwhile to learn about as geniuses in science or philosophy or politics. But Frank Sinatra was a kind of genius, and his life is pretty interesting so far. Also, Kaplan is a good writer and sometimes I read the prose aloud to feel it on my tongue. I think it sharpens me in some way to feel how good writing conforms to the breath.

I'm also reading Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry. Good Western so far -- it kind of seems like Red Dead Redemption 2 is to video games what Lonesome Dove is to novels: longform, epic Westerns which are modern but don't treat the genre's tropes with contempt. Really, come to think of it, the Western seems to be the one genre which is allowed to have some dignity against the eviscerations of postmodernism. Occasionally you'll get a flat-out anti-western like No Country for Old Men. But then you'll get really good modern takes on the genre which incorporate the spirit of the best while modernizing the trappings of the story, like Breaking Bad or that Wolverine movie Logan.

I finished The Road, by Cormac McCarthy. It was good, but I suspect it shouldn't have been my first McCarthy novel. Yes, it may well exemplify his sparse prose the best. But I feel like even though Blood Meridian is a lot longer it seems to have more in the way of action. Maybe when my docket is free I'll try it out.

Ender's Game remains excellent even years after discovering it as a teenager. You'll also like Ender's Shadow, best read as a companion to the original.

Goggins is probably the single best human exemplar of human malleability. He's like a fascinating edge case of what happens when somebody just ... has infinite willpower.

It's a shame because I liked both Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Speaker for the Dead, the sequel to Ender's Game, I remember reading when I was younger -- too young, I think, to understand much of it. I believe I gave up on the Ender series after Xenocide.

As for the sequel to Ender's Shadow, called Shadow of the Hegemon, I was hopeless to comprehend it. I remember it being nearly entirely about the various machinations of warring states, masses of soldiers led from here to there, what this genius kid might be thinking at this time, etc.. It lacked so much of the human drama which made the initial novels good.

Sometimes I'll play music when writing. But if the music has lyrics I prefer to listen to it when the writing is not labor-intensive -- more like the initial, stream-of-consciousness stuff that goes into the first draft of an essay. But instrumental music, like classical, goes with doing anything.

I'm not familiar with this guy but I think the obvious solution is to never, under any circumstances, apologize for sins against the Left. I'm reminded of the scene from Darkest Hour where Churchill, referring to peace talks with Hitler, yells "you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is stuck in its mouth!" The Left -- that is, the mass of men and women who are in control of nearly every relevant channel of Western power and influence -- aren't interested in conversation. They're interested in grinding their enemies under heel. They are the tiger, and even the most well-meaning attempts of conservatives to roll over and play the deferential gentleman get them eaten. But oh, how very gracefully those posh conservatives bowed their heads and accepted martyrdom! It won't achieve anything. The Christians with whom I stand should model themselves after the crusaders. More Richard the Lionheart and less Thomas a Kempis.

Rightists do change their beliefs like any honest person. They should be candid about that. But these changes should be framed as intellectual corrections or, at worst, correcting youthful intemperance. Never, ever, should they use Leftist semiotics (saying, "I commit to doing better," or "I apologize for my past hurtful words" is self-immolation). In other words, if you're being accused of right-wing dogwhistling then you're doing it right. Either way the Left hates the Right. They should make themselves worth the hatred.

If all that seems too rigid, then know I think these rules necessary guardrails against the conservative inclination to seek compromise. That leads to the "speed-limit conservatism" of the National Review crowd. Those people exemplify the chief problem with conservatism. The problem isn't a lack of clear policy goals or manifestos or books about the glories of Western civilization. Books are dead when their words don't fill the chests of men. The problem is that conservatives are old and bloodless. Bronze Age Pervert's book isn't a sane or articulate political project. It voices a spirit which moves and animates everything else. The actual content of the book is all performative insanity -- nobody would seriously consider comparing Mitt Romney to Alcibiades unless they're joshing around. BAP is a full-on thought-criminal who attracts just the people he needs to attract: serious young men with spines who are looking to armor themselves for the eventual crackdown their overlords will visit upon them. These men don't need another thought-piece about changing the Leftist orthodoxy from within. They need to find communities of other, understanding men with whom to build themselves against the world.

If it seems like I'm not addressing your main question, then know that's partly because I'm not familiar with Hanania (though it looks like I should be!). The best option you present appears to be #3: ignore what's going on. Not because he's ashamed or looking for approval, but because it isn't worth his time to explain himself. His silence is the answer. Eventually he might be forced to address the issue. Then he should just be honest about why he's changed his views, using parameters similar to what I outlined above. Avoiding an apologetic tone is crucial. The very young men the dissident right appeals to will sniff that stuff out as weakness, and deservedly so.

The Summa is a big 'un and unless you seriously mean to delve into mediaeval logic and theology, better to just look up particular queries in it (e.g. what did Aquinas say about X?)

On the other hand, a good introduction to Thomism would help clear up a lot of the confusion a modern person would have going into Aquinas. Edward Feser is a good contemporary Catholic philosopher whose books are very illuminating.

For a broader book on medieval thought, Etienne Gilson's Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages is tough to beat.

Edward Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism is a great introduction to Thomism. It gives good Aristotelian arguments for the existence of God.

Though I agree that generally women look best when leaning into traditionally feminine styles, I think short hair looks pretty dang good on some girls I know.

That's a shame, I enjoyed the first animated Spider-Man and I was thinking of seeing that one. Life's just been too busy lately.

Beyond the Spiderverse, which is the sequel to the animated one, is pretty damn good.

If I had to guess, those Democrats hadn't given any significant thought to the issue beforehand. So when it became a culture war topic, their first exposure to it was through the lens of the party-approved messaging. Thus, Democrats can credibly say that as long as they've been considering it, they've been in favor of giving "trans kids" hormone treatments.

The reason they hadn't considered it beforehand, of course, is that it's so completely insane that it would never enter an average person's mind except in the most cartoonish dystopian cartoons.

That sounds like quite a story. Have you shared the whole thing it anywhere before?

R.L. Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. For some time I've been thinking of writing an effort-post on Stevenson's nonfiction, specifically his essays, as they're very good. I'm a fan of Pulvis et Umbra, though Crabbed Age and Youth for a while was my favorite.