>friendly No.

Do you ever read a book and absorb absolutely nothing but the most trivial details? Blue Nightmares, what was that even about? I think there was a witch doing something and the main character was having dreams about it. I don't know how it ended or really anything relevant at all. I just remember the main character peed her pants. That's it.

>>29 Occasionally. I get very annoyed with myself. Exhort myself to actually concentrate and start again. I try to catch myself in a few pages. If I find myself rereading the same page 3-4 times I call it quits for the night. Just means I am too tired. It happens.

>>25 Or we could just call each other faggots in every thread. That works too, I guess.

>>41 that's a nice way to rapport. i'll start. hey faggot. my name is anon. i'm anon, you're faggot. see? that was easy.

>>42 It is easier.

I got OC! Someone finally drew me Lena from T.aT.u

It's okay. I know you guys are jealous. One day maybe you too, can get a drawfag to make questionable art of a pretend lesbian.

Thia picture is nice, but it is time to bully another drawfag and add to my burgeoning collection.

Yeah I didn't post at all today. CWC fucking his mom has just been too fascinating.

I bet this board smells like a quiet little bookstore.

>>290 Probably.

The Dictator’s Handbook: 3 Steps to Being a Dictator By Lucio Buffalmano / 24 minutes of reading The Dictator’s Handbook (2011) teaches the power dynamics and Machiavellian strategies and mindsets of dictatorship. It provides a different and revolutionary approach to political analysis by skirting fuzzy appeals to higher ideals and national interests and focusing on politicians’ and leaders’ self-interest. The authors suggest that good or bad policies depend not on skills or goodwill, but only on who the leaders need to curry favor with to stay in power. Key Insights Politics is a big tug of war for power and control of resources Democracies are best in guaranteeing prosperity because the leaders depend on the citizens’ well being to remain in power Autocracies lead to mass poverty and a few massively rich cronies because leaders depend on the cronies to stay in power, not on the average citizens The best way to ensure good policies and increase a nation’s well being is to make the leaders dependent on the whole citizenship Summary About The Authors: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Professor of Politics at the New York University. He is also a prolific author with 16 books on his name. Alastair Smith is also a professor of politics at the New York University, author of three books and winner of the 2005 Karl Deutsch Award. He is also the author of “The Logic of Political Survival“. Introduction: Are You Any Better Than Despots? We all love the terrible stories of the worst politicians and business executives. Why? Because they make us feel as if we are superior, and would do much better. Instead, the authors urge us to ask why many, if not most individuals, behave exactly the same way. What are the forces that shape politicians to cling to power, bribe, and enslave their populations? These are the answer that “The Dictator’s Handbook” seeks to provide an answer for. The Rules of Political Power De Mesquita and Smith list the following rules of political power: Politics is about getting and keeping political power (not about the welfare of the people) Political power is best ensured and maintained when you depend on few essential cronies to attain and retain office (dictators are often in a better position to retain power than democrats) Depending on a small coalition of cronies allows leaders to tax at higher rates Dictators have the most power when the essential cronies are easily replaceable Ideology and Nationalism Don’t Matter to Leaders In politics, ideologies, nationalities and cultures don’t really matter much. Most political commentators and newspapers think in terms of what leaders want to do for their countries, but that’s the wrong way of understanding politics. These sentences make little sense in the world of politics:

[Expand Post]

The American people want The Chinese government ought to do European leaders should do X for the good of Europe Instead, if we want to understand politics, we must learn to analyze and understand the actions and interests of specific named leaders, and we must avoid getting lost in fuzzy ideologies such as national interest and common good. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about “international relations”, because it’s not about relations among states, but it’s not about states, it’s about leaders and what they want and seek. To understand politics, you must think about what’s good for the leader to get to power and maintain power. That’s the true key to understanding politics -and to learn how to fix politics-. The 3 True Power Dimensions of Politics Nobody rules alone. And what determines the balance of power and the politics that follow is how many backs the leader needs to scratch and how big is the available supply of backs to scratch. From a leader’s point of view, these are the categories that determine the extent of his power and the politics that he will likely enact: Nominal selectors (interchangeables) Everyone who has at least a legal saying in choosing the leader. In democracies, it includes everyone who has a vote. But also in some non democracies voters are nominal selectors (ie.: The Soviet Union). In practice, no individual voter has a big say in who runs the country and the power of a single nominal selector in a true democracy is not much bigger than in countries with rigged elections. Real selectors (influentials) This is the group that actually chooses the leader or the leader who will run for the elections. In Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, this is the senior royal member. In communist countries, it’s the voting members of the communist party. In the US these are the electors of the electoral college. But since they are bound to vote like the states votes, the nominal selectors and the real selectors are pretty closely aligned. Winning coalition (essentials) It’s a subset of the real selector, and these are the people whose support is essential for the leader to remain in power. They are the folks with the power to overthrow their boss. It includes the people responsible for actual policies, very senior civil servants, the highest army generals and a handful members of the court for kings. In democracies such as the US the winning coalition is much larger than in dictatorships, and it consists of the minimum number of voters who give the edge of one candidate over another. Based on the dimensions of political power, this is the definition of dictatorship: Dictatorship is a government based on a particularly small group of essentials, drawn from a very large group of interchangeables, and usually a small batch of influentials. And this is the definition of democracy: Democracy is a government based on a very large number of essentials and a very large number of interchangeables, with the influential group being almost as big as the interchangeables While, in monarchies or military juntas, the number of interchangeables, influentials and essentials, is small. Because dictatorships depend on a small number of essential supporters, they are a battle for private rewards. And because democracies depend on large swaths of voters, they are a battle for policy ideas. My note: this was a generalization of course, see Trump’s win with few good policy ideas and read “Win Bigly“. Dictator’s Rules Keep the winning coalition as small as possible: you will need fewer people to stay in power, have higher control over them, and you will save on graft (my note: however, smaller number also means easier for them to organize a putsch) Keep the nominal selectors as large as possible: so that you can easily replace troublemakers among the influentials and essentials, and sends the essentials a message that they better behave Control the flow of revenues Pay your essentials just enough to keep them loyal: and keep them away from the source of money Don’t take money out of the essentials’ pockets to make the people better: dictators depend on essentials, not on average citizens Leaders Spend On Those They Need to Stay In Power To understand politics, you need to understand this: Leaders spend on those whose support their hold on power. This is why in democracies, where leaders need the support of all the voters, leaders spend a lot of resources for the good of the overall population. Buying votes is not effective in democracies, so leaders seek to keep the loyalty of the voters with good and effective policies and with public spending that supports large infrastructure projects. Democratic leaders also want a good and strong economy, because a poor economy means unhappy people and unhappy people means no votes. But in dictatorships, dictators need the support and loyalty of the essential cronies, not on the large population. And so, they spend on the essentials

But in dictatorships, dictators need the support and loyalty of the essential cronies, not on the large population. And so, they spend on the essentials first and foremost (even before spending on themselves). Their political survival does not depend on the nominal selectors, whom sometimes don’t even vote, so the population always gets the short end of the stick, the leftovers -if there is anything left-. And that’s why the essential cronies often grow super rich even while their countries fare poorly. Where’s The Money? Leaders need to keep their backers happy. And to do so, their main worry is where to find the money to keep the machine oiled. Democracies, on average, keep taxes lower because they need to emphasize public good. Dictatorships instead tend to seek to extract as much as possible from those at the bottom (who don’t really matter), to enrich those at the top (whose loyalty matters to the leader). The goal of dictators is to tax as much as possible without getting to the point of taxing so much that people stop working and revolt. Getting to Power: Here’s How You Do It A dictator needs to do only three things to get into power: Remove the incumbent The incumbent always has an advantage if he is doing his job well. The coalition of supporters know they will be getting their beak wet, while they cannot be assured you will be doing the same. There are three ways of removing the incumbent: Wait for him to die Strike at the right opportunity (old leader, a faux pas, a financial crisis) Make an offer and/or convince the current supporters to switch sides Overthrow the government through internal revolution or war with a foreign power. Mortality is a great time to get into power. Even slightly before death, leaders are usually at their weakest. Not because they’re old or necessarily physically weak, but because the supporters know the leaders will not be long in a position to enrich and support them. And so they look at possible future alternatives. For leaders, it’s always a good idea to designate a successor to avoid these issues, and best of all if it’s a family member. Supporters are fearful of supporting a new entry though because they know what they’re leaving, but they don’t know what they’re getting. And it’s common for supporters to be removed, discarded or executed once the leader reaches power. That’s why allaying supporters’ fears is a crucial step in getting into power. Keep in mind internal revolution need a lack of internal support from the military to succeed, so they are only Seize the apparatus of government (treasury first and foremost) Most of all, you must get your hands on the treasury. Ideally, you will also be able to capture the former dictator and retrieve some of his war chests. Form a coalition of supporters to sustain him in power While a long-standing dictator is safer in place than a democratic leader, the first period as a dictator is risky. Make sure you lock in a loyal coalition or someone else will be looking to overthrow you soon enough.

[Expand Post]

As a rule of thumb, keeping the same coalition of supporters as your predecessor is a risky move as it may contain true loyalist to your predecessor. And keeping the same coalition that carried you to power is also risky. They all feel too powerful after having topped the previous leader. And they all feel their work should be rewarded with more than just an underling position. Many successful dictators get rid of the original coalition of supporters and replaces them with new ones. Dictators Are Held In Power by Military The military is always a key to prop up the dictator. Internal revolutions only succeed when the internal supporters defect the leader and let the protesters free to overthrow the government. Dictators who know the game and who still have the loyalty of their supporters will squash rebellions quickly and brutally to send a strong message that it’s not worth it to demonstrate. Say the authors: Consider a room of 100 people. Anyone could take complete control if he has 5 supporters with automatic weapons. And he will remain in control as long as the gunmen support him. There needs to be nothing special about the dictator except for the fact that he secure the guns first. Companies Follow The Same Rules The authors make the point that the same rules and dynamics apply to public companies. The authors show that, albeit the CEO should respond to the board, it’s common for newly appointed CEOs to shake up the board after they come to power. Doing a good job is not enough to ensure political survival, and that is true for politics as much for business. As long as bosses are beholden to few board of directors, they will keep them happy with fat bonuses in exchange for the continued backing. The solution is only to make CEOs more accountable to the millions of shareholders. Reforming corporations is easier than reforming governments, the authors say: corporations don’t have armies. My Note: I’m not convinced by that. In a way, no relying on hard power makes it easier for corporations to defend. There is no real enemy fight, just an invisible enemy who buys influence with money. Also read: How corporations manipulate employees Stop Foreign Aid: It Doesn’t Help, & Might Actually Cause Harm The easiest way to incentivize a dictator to liberalize its economy and provide more freedoms is to force them to rely on tax revenues to generate funds. If a dictator can rely on resources or on foreign aid and funds, then they will have no incentives to improve the life of the average citizens. Democracies should not send any aid to dictators, should not lend them any money and should not forgive any debt. Dictators who get a debt discount start re-borrowing recklessly right away. Furthermore, the authors dedicate a whole chapter to foreign aid as a tool for policymaking, and not true help. Aid does a little bit of good in the world and vastly more harm Democratization does not require benevolence. It requires economic needs by the dictator. And foreign aid helps alleviate the economic pain, but only alleviates it for the leaders, not for the people. Dictator’s Dilemma: Liberty & Tax Revenues or Liberty & Risk Revolt? Dictators can also gain granting political freedom, allowing technology, and providing good instruction. How? Freedoms help the population work more effectively, which in turn produce more tax revenues for the dictators. However, freedoms also pose a threat as they make it easier for the population to organize revolts. Galvanized by the increasing freedoms, the population might also feel like they can now demand more and more. The authors say that successful dictators provide just enough freedom to keep the population producing enough for him to pay his supporters. What About Wise, Well-Intentioned Leaders? The author says that the world has produced wise and well-intentioned leaders and dictators. But there haven’t been many of them, so you better not bank on it. They also make the point that “well intentioned” often does not mean “good leaders”. Some of the worst leaders have been those who thought they were going to do great things for their population (see failed communist experiments as in Nikita Khrushchev, Mao Tsedong). Among the exceptions of enlightened dictators are Dang Xiaoping (the man that liberalized China’s communist economy while still keeping control) and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. If Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely That maxim is generally true, but it doesn’t capture the causality. Power leads to corruption and corruption leads to power. Small coalition governments need corruption because of the very nature with which they operate. The authors say that the most corrupt regimes are alway

The authors say that the most corrupt regimes are always led by a small coalition. Laws against corruption don’t work in oppressive regimes and only provide the leader with more tools to prosecute his adversaries (think of the trumped-up charges of corruption in China or Russia). Some leaders indeed allow corruption while still recording corruption in case they need to get rid of someone. The best way to deal with corruption is to increase the coalition size. So the authors say that to decrease corruption in FIFA and in the Olympic committee is to increase the number of people with voting rights in those institutions. Dictators Don’t Care Much About Wars, Democrats Do Dictators have two uses for the military: Protecting the country against external threats Protecting themselves against internal threats And they usually care more about the second than the first. As long as the war abroad does not threaten their position, dictators get into wars more easily than democrats do because they care nearly as much if the citizens at home are not happy with the war. For democrats instead wars are costly. Soldiers dying reflect terribly on democratic leaders, so democrats only get into wars that they can win quickly, and they tend to spend much more on technology. Why spend more on technology? Because citizens’ lives matter if the democrats is to stay in power. For despots instead soldiers are expendable. Despots Follow Sun-Tzu, Democrats Not: Here’s Why Sun-Tzu advice in “The Art of War” works for despots. Sun-Tzu recommends stopping the campaign if it’s costing too much and it’s drawing out for too long. Instead, democrats don’t want to quit war because that would make it seem like an unnecessary war that they lost. And that would cost them office because a war loss almost always costs them office. Unless they get beaten out of office by the opponent’s army, despots don’t have that problem. Sun-Tzu emphasizes the importance of spoils to motivate soldiers, while democracies prefer fighting when it serves the citizens, or it would be impossible to sell the effort -and deaths- at home. Bad behavior is more often than not, good politics the dictator's handbook book cover More Realpolitik Wisdom Montesquieu didn’t really understand politics and human nature. Machiavelli had a better grasp of human nature, but we can do better today by looking at more data Do it, don’t say it: Never tell you are going to make a purge of your essentials: do it without saying. If you announce, you are inviting internal rebellions In democracies, austerity does not sell well. Especially after austerity has been going for years (see Churchill after WWII) Make friends: CEO’s longevity is tied to maintaining close personal ties to the members of the board Competent minister or board members can be a risk for dictators as potential rivals (see “The 48 Laws of Power“, law #1 of power: never outshine the master). The only trait that matters for dictators is loyalty Members of small coalition live well, but in fear: make the coalition bigger and their benefits get diluted, make it smaller and they might lose their job Rigged elections help dictators: Strong leaders keep the supporters off-balance. This is why there are rigged elections in tyrannical states: leaders send the message that supporters can be replaced Votes are sold in blocks in democracies: Many democracies have independent voters in theory but not in practice. Often votes are sold as “blocks” by their leaders (ie.: union bosses, religious leaders, or senators). And often these leaders sell the votes for a kickback

[Expand Post]

Tax loopholes serve the backers: Dictators tax on average more heavily than democrats, but both make complicated rules and exceptions to favor their backers It’s risky to be rich in autocracies (the richest Russian and Chinese individuals were both in prison) Don’t lend to dictators: both democrats and, even more, dictators. The problem of repayment will be borne by the next leader… Or there is always the possibility of default and begging for debt relief. It’s not a question of finance illiteracy Economic growth does not guarantee political improvement Small coalition regimes run their economies into the ground through inefficiencies designed to benefit the leader and the essentials Ruthlessness is inherent to dictatorships: The authors say that dictators must be ruthless. If people know he’s unprepared to be ruthless when needed, he might not last long in power There is always a principled way to mask one’s true intentions. The US promotes democracy when it backs the rebels and it supports stability when it supports governments If you are interested in more, I recommend these articles with examples: Political manipulations: techniques and examples Office politics: the archetypes of players And of course, in the face of selfish politicians, it might be a good idea to become a more individualistic player yourself. Enlightened Self-Interest: Making of The Ubermensch Dictators’ Handbook Quotes On expedience VS doing what’s good: Coming to power is never about doing the right thing. It’s always about doing what’s expedient. On keeping the army loyal: Mugabe succeeds because he understands it does not matter what happens to the people as long as he pays the army On the ultimate objective: In the end, ruling is the objective, not ruling well On loyalty and competence: It is better to have loyal incompetents than competent rivals On rigged elections: The is no better thing than a rigged election. As long as you are the one rigging it On leaders and taxes: Leaders on the other hand are rather fond of taxes. As long as they don’t have to pay them And: Being a dictator is a terrific job, but it can also be terribly stressful. Especially if money is in short supply. Taxes are a great antidote to stress On the dangers of wealth in autocracies: In autocracies it is unwise to be rich unless the government made you rich On health care and infant mortality in autocracies: Even in autocracies with reported good health care system, infant mortality is high. Not because dictators don’t like babies just like the next guy, but they recognize that helping babies doesn’t help them On helping the people instead of the coalition: Caesar made the mistake of trying to help the people by using a portion of the coalition’s money. It is fine for leaders to enrich the people, but it has to come from the leader’s pocket, not from his coalition of supporters. Too much greed and too many good deeds are equally punishable. On idealism VS reality, the authors make a good case that everyone wants to help… But with government money, not their own. And then they say: Despite the idealistic expressions of some, all too many of us prefer cheap oil to real change in West Africa or the Middle East And, finally, one of my favorites underlining that appeals to ideological principles are often suspicious: Men always have two reasons for doing things. The good reason, and the real reason. Criticism Let me preface this section: Not only I loved the book, but I also think that it is overall mostly right. But a few notes still need to be added and potentially discussed: #1. Does the US really act like a democracy for the citizens or are some democracies more masked autocracies? The authors say that democracies tend to act for the citizens for the simple fact that they need the citizens’ support. Yet, Martin Gilen’s study over 21 years shows that policy outcomes strongly reflect the will of high-income citizens. This is not how democracies should work as for de Mesquita and Smith’s model. When it comes to actual policy, the US se

This is not how democracies should work as for de Mesquita and Smith’s model. When it comes to actual policy, the US seems to act more like a small coalition government. Which makes sense, if you think that politicians heavily depend on donors to run their campaigns. It would make sense then that the higher the wealth inequality (gini coefficient) and the more expensive the political campaigns, the less democracies act in favor of the average citizens and the more they act like small-coalition governments (ie.: autocracies). This does not invalidate “The Dictator’s Handbook’s” theories, but it increases a bit the complexity of the analysis, it adds some exceptions and blurs the lines between “democracies on paper” and “true democracies”. True democracies then would require politicians to less dependent on powerful and wealthy citizens and, possibly, present less income disparity just to make sure that a few cannot buy policies. #2. Politics as self-interest only is a limited view and fails to truly understand and appreciate the hues of human nature Since political analysis based on self-interest are sorely lacking, we need more books like “The Dictator’s Handbook”. Yet, I believe that limiting ourselves to self-interest only leads to poor understanding and not to a “theory of everything” as the authors’ students call it. Not considering that people do have pro-social tendencies is a failure to fully understand and appreciate human nature (for more on pro-social innate human tendencies see Ridley, 1996). It might as well be the case that dictators are self-selecting for selfish dictators’ job while democrats attract a broader spectrum of individuals, including individuals who also want to do some good. As an example, see the following: #3. Leaders do have states’ interests in mind (even if for selfish reasons) The author says that it’s never about countries but about single leaders. Leaders don’t care about their countries, they care about themselves, they say. Talking about Russian’s ambitions to restore Russia as a great power make no sense, they say, because it’s not about “Russia”, but all about the leader. Yet, this statement in my opinion is wrong from a social-psychology point of view. People do identify with their ingroup and with their countries. And leaders are people. In social-psychology it’s called the “Social Identity Theory“, and in my guide on how to be great leader I say that all leaders should encourage their group members to identify with their group for the simple reason that most people already have an inborn tendency to do so. Putin, as many other autocrats, most likely does want his country to be a great power. One because it gives him more power, second because it reflects great on him, third because that would make him well-liked and everyone wants to be revered and, finally, because he likely is at least a bit nationalistic and he identifies with Russia. #4. Biased towards democracy: is democracy really always the best form of government? How about democratic tragedy of commons? The authors seem to reach this conclusion: Big coalition governments where nominal selectors are also the true selectors, such as democracies, are the best systems to ensure good policy and development And, in many ways, that’s absolutely true. Especially if you compare it to your average dictatorship. Yet, I can see many ways in which democracy, having difficulty with good but unpopular actions, cannot manage to avoid disasters. The authors themselves admit that austerity does not win votes in democracies. Yet austerity is exactly what you need sometimes. I think of Greece or of Italy, a country with great potential, but which cannot manage to get out of recession and decrease its debt. If Italy were a dictatorship, the dictators could introduce the forceful, unpopular in the short-term but good in the long-term policies that the country needs.

[Expand Post]

Democracies are also prone to tragedy of commons (also see: “game theory bargaining“). How does democracy cope, for example, with overpopulation if nobody wants a policy for one single child max? How does democracy cope with environmental preservation if citizens all prefer to pollute? Democracies can easily fall victims of the tragedy of commons whereas an “enlightened despot” can steer a country towards what’s truly best for them in the long run. That is exactly what Xiaoping did, and the authors themselves listed him as one of the “despotic heroes” Xiaoping probably performed for China much better than any democracy could have ever done. The authors say that good despots can exist, but they end up pursuing the wrong policies because they lack people’s feedback. However, that is not a convincing argument to me. Modern despots can have access to plenty of data that average citizens don’t even bother to check before voting. What about hated democrats and beloved dictators? “The Dictator’s Handbook” does not expressly say that dictators are disliked. But the feel is that dictators are disliked by the population, while democrats are more liked and popular. Yet I think of Vladimir Putin, a rather liked and loved autocrat in Russia. Or even Pope Francis in the Vatican/Catholic Church. And in most Western democracies the approval ratings of politicians are abysmally low. This again seems, in my opinion, to fly against the face of the “terrible despots” concept and lend more credibility to the notion that “enlightened despots” are sometimes better than weak democracies. #5. Unsure on some data, indexes and evidence There were a few instances where I wasn’t sure about the underlying data or about the indicators used to corroborate the theory. For example: Is the “resource curse” true? The author says that “resource rich” countries systematically underperform resource-poor countries. The author says that “nations with readily extractable resource systematically underperform nations without such resources”. But it that true? A few notable exceptions spring to mind, including US, Canada, and Norway. There has been considerable criticism of the “resource curse” theory, and I am personally not too convinced of how real that curse is. I think it might be true with dictators, but it’s not necessarily true with democracies. The authors should have pointed that out a bit more clearly maybe. Do democracies really tax less? The authors say that democracies, on average, tax at a lower rate. They also say they have another book up with all the data and I am eventually going to read that, too. Still, I would have liked them to at least mention they have data to back their assertions. There are plenty of exceptions that make me at least doubt that assertion. Think of the Scandinavian countries and many more European countries. But also think of autocratic regimes with very low taxation or, in some cases, even true tax havens (ie.: Dubai). “Straight road index” Measuring how straight the roads are to tease out how despotic a government is seemed a bit too convoluted to me. Not necessarily untrue, but it might be a bit of a stretch. Especially if you don’t take into account geography, population density and wealth. Earthquake index The authors use earthquakes victims as a proxy for the level of government’s care for its citizens. That, in turn, would help identify dictatorships (don’t care at all) VS democracies (care). It makes sense on paper. Yet, earthquakes are so rare that even democratic leaders should theoretically not care much about protecting their citizens for events which will happen who knows when. But if we only think in terms of self-interest, democrats also have a strong short-term bias. The authors mention the earthquake in Italy for example, but I know well about it because it was exactly in my region, and the authors fai

Yet, earthquakes are so rare that even democratic leaders should theoretically not care much about protecting their citizens for events which will happen who knows when. But if we only think in terms of self-interest, democrats also have a strong short-term bias. The authors mention the earthquake in Italy for example, but I know well about it because it was exactly in my region, and the authors failed to realize that the largest amount of victims came exactly from government buildings which collapsed. So albeit I agree with the overarching idea, I’m not too sure about this “earthquake index”. And since self-interest in my opinion does not explain alone big present investment for uncertain future rewards, I must wonder again: maybe self-interest is not the only way to understand politics?

What's people reading? I am not. I'm replaying wasteland 2. I should be reading all manner of things.

Read these pulps

>>305 Wait to play W3. But do play it once the all the DLC is released. I thought it was better than W2. >>308 I'll look into them. I do love me some Asimov.

>>308 Nice just grabbed them both. Will let you know what I think in a day or two. Thanks man! >>310 Yeah that's what I'm hearing. Will do bud.

Where do you anons find recommendations for books? I figured "hey let's pick a genre and then the highest rated thing on goodreads" but a lot of the highly reviewed books there, and conversely a lot of low ratings seem to come from retarded women who got offended/aroused by something trivial meaning the book now rates a 1/5 star rating.

>>361 That's a good question. The answer varies per person no doubt, but for me personally, it means I read a lot of bad books. I should post more reviews of books to avoid. The problem I have is I just start another one. Fiva by Gordon Stainforth is an extremely good read, a true story, and may make you take up hiking and camping more. Now that's all well and good if you're in the mood for an adventure, but let us say you want fiction. Well, I always enjoyed Neal Stephenson's early books before he became obsessed with "jews good". Anathema is the latest book of his to read, everything past that is garbage. Zodiac is a lot of fun. For Warhammer 40k I like anything by Graham McNeill, James Swallow, and Dan Abnett. Chris Wraight is usually okay. Guy Haley will shoehorn in a tough as nails, respectful of no one, magical nigress. Every fucking book. And get this, she won't have anything to do with the goddamn plot. As soon as you identify the super black chick skip the chapter, I am serious you will miss nothing. Gav Thorpe sometimes does this as well, sometimes not. He is the better of those two. For non-fiction, it comes down to a man's mood. Politics? Bitter Harvest by Ian Smith is pretty good. War? Depends on the theatre but I like "with the old breed" by EB sledge. Sports? Ask someone else Fantasy? The Witcher books are excellent, but I prefer the ten books of Amber, usually found in any bookstore as "the great book of Amber" collecting all ten novels for about 20 bucks. The author is Roger Zelazny. Really good stuff, at least for the Corwin cycle. Submarines? Blind man's bluff by... Various? It'd been a while. Viruses? Kinda bad as far as accuracy goes, but still an incredible read "the hot zone" "the cobra event" "demon in the freezer" by Richard Preston are all really good. Space? I have always loved Asimov and Niven. Though not ringworld. I always thought it was kinda boring. Lucifers Hammer is one of the greatest books ever written and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Shit, that's like 10-20 books. Surely one of those you haven't read yet, and those are all winners man. Enjoy.

>>362 Thank you for getting me into the Amber books. They're really enjoyable.

>>367 No problem anon, one of my favorite series. To this day on long drives or hikes in the woods I'll find myself trying to shadowshift. A game of course, but there's nothing like seeing that one rose growing out of nowhere along the road just like I visualized it. Zelazny has never gotten anywhere near the credit he deserves in my opinion.

The worlds of fiction and reality meet, people from various fictional worlds enter into our reality, while people from our world enter into the realms of their favorite books and films. The story is mainly focused on the problems that arise from this in regards to political and societal issues, mainly as a means of critiquing the disparity between how reality is portrayed by tv shows and how reality actually is. The story focuses on the conflict between the black people of fiction and those of reality, where fictional blacks are immigrating in large numbers into the real world, because there's "no racism in reality" and more room for their success (meaning that, in contrast to the white people in fiction, real white people are forming their opinions of blacks based upon the behavior of blacks and how it impacts society, rather then how they are in fiction, where they just hate people with dark skin no matter how they conduct themselves and how their behavior impacts society). Real world blacks are angry that they are being replaced by blacks of fiction who are more successful. less criminal, and just generally better then they are, the real deal simply cannot compete with these doctors and lawyers and nuclear physicists from the fictional reality, all of whom have strong moral values, easily fitting into white society even better than asians and some whites can. uncomfortable truths about the accuracy of how fiction portrays race relations is brought to the forefront, real world whites are overjoyed at having these fictional blacks coming to their world and neighborhoods, real world blacks are incensed that they are seeing "fakes" taking the positions at the top of their communities, and exposing the reality of white racism against black people. There is also a show of how different real racism is compared to fictional racism, the whites of fictional worlds are overjoyed that the blacks of their world are leaving, wile real world whites who are members of groups like the kkk are equally ecstatic to see the niggers who look and act like niggers being replaced by the niggers who merely look the part, but are otherwise "whiter than white". The fictional blacks are disgusted by the real people they are supposedly sharing a race with, who have it so easy, and are only failing because of their own inferiority, but instead of improving themselves, they just blame the white people for what they go through, the white people with whom, they feel far more kinship. There are a lot of whites who take the side of the real blacks against the fictional ones, seeing them as a separate group being oppressed by the "fakes", they are nigh universally found on the far left, who are celebrating real mediocrity over fake excellence. The main character is a famous black actor who is dealing with all the characters he played coming to the real world, who lack the faults he has, who look like he does, and that there is a conspiracy to kill him and have one of his many doubles take his place. Meanwhile, the whites of fiction are far worse than the ones in reality, essentially being like the real blacks in comparison to the fake ones, but in reverse, whites are undergoing a different struggle, realizing that the fake ones are so much more noticeably worse means that they've been slandered in fiction all these decades, they now have to come to grips with their own self-perceived image being far lower than their actual merits as a people. Other racial issues are explored, such as what happens when a jew who milks the holocaust but doesn't believe it actually happened meets a fictional jew from a movie like "shindler's list"? one who, seeing that the holocaust in reality was just a hoax, blames the real jew for the their existence and what they had gone through? Most of this focuses on the "realistic" fictional works, and how their populations come into conflict, there's also a lot of people going to the fictional world of their fantasies and promptly dying there (turns out a world of constant danger where everyone's an impossibly badass character with superpowers is not a world someone from reality without these mostly-unacknowledged superpowers would do well to survive in, even if they have their levels of logical observation so much higher than the locals do). However, those nerds who di survive and make it back bring with them some of the advanced technology of the setting, reality bending materials like vibranium, which, instead of being used for weapons and armor, is used for making perpetual motion devices, essentially a permanent source of free energy.

>>385 Wow. An intriguing an big idea. Curious to see it developed more. But already it's a thinker. Two days now been tossing this round my head. Good stuff.

Any recommendations for good audio books? I tend to play a lot of vidya with low audio with a podcast in the background but I've pretty much given on finding a podcast I don't find infuriating and I figure might as well either listen to a good story or slightly learn something new.

>>401 Well the audiobook industry fucking exploded in the past ten years. There's now practically every book written being read out or in some cases full cast acted out with sound effects even. For the prior I would recommend the Horus Heresy series. I like having those on in the background. For the later there's billions of westerns and mystery novels that have been made into audiobooks. Personally I've been listening to "the survivalist" series by Jerry Ahern, it consists of 26 novels following a white american man living through ww3. Ussr nukes and then invades the US. And our protagonist has to find his family and his hideout cabin full of food guns and ammo. Pretty good even if he immediately meets and befriends an Israeli who of course always has his back and is super trustworthy... Okay so Rubenstein is fucking awful character, but there's is always going to be a certain amount of propaganda in everything available these days. As a teenager I like the left behind audiobooks. Full voice cast and sfx. But unless your super religious I would not recommend. Zorro is always fun to listen to. There's a bunch of those, and I've bought some random western audiobook cds at truck stops that weren't bad. I guess it comes down to your own personal taste. Because again in conclusion the audiobook industry is huge these days. You got options.

I read a lot of ebooks. Epubs and mobis. And I have noticed some odd transcription errors over the years. Usually minor misspellings. Within the first five pages of any ebook you get a feel for how close to the real product you will get. Some have formatting errors so severe the book is by and large unreadable. Those are the worst and most annoying. On one occasion a book would go chapter 1. Then chapter 1 and 2. Then chapter 1 and 2 and 3. And so on. The book wound up being ten times as long as it really was. Super aggravating. But tonight I'm talking about a strangely persistent error. Every ebook seems to have it at least once. "The" will be turned into "die" Which I believe is the exact same word but in german. Is the only scanning software available originally written in german? I don't understand why this particular mistake is so persistent. But it happens a fuck load.

Where do you get audio books if you don't want to pay for audible/ pay at all? Librevox is pretty shit most of the time.

>>424 Audio book bay

How do you find the time to read?

>>519 By ignoring threads and not posting.

>>570 >6 months ago You're pretty good at that.

>>519 I'm way too distracted at home nowadays so usually I bring a book with me to work and read a few pages every time I take a break (or on Sundays when I'm sitting in the office and have nothing to do). Did the same thing back when I was in school since there was so much downtime in between classes, I probably did more reading back then than I have since solely because of that.

>>593 Hey me too. I spent most of my time at school with my nose in a book. Teachers didnt mind even during class hours cause I knew the material at least as well as they did. Whenever some kid complained id get called on to answer basically the entire lesson plan for the day and then right back to being ignored. It was glorious.

>>124 >this was 3 years ago Okay so I'm slow at this. Anyway another drawfag has drawn Lena! Now my collection numbers TWO (2) whole pictures. Yeah.

>>639 turns out this was promotional art and not custom made. Dang it. But then an anon made a real custom drawing for me! So we got two now for real.

You guys ever have dreams of becoming a writer, or taking up writing as a full time job? I don't think it's feasible and it'd definitely suck, but it's fun to imagine late nights smoking and listening to crickets out the window while drafting a story, or trekking across the country in one of those vans with a bed and little mini kitchen, interviewing whomever you come across and cataloguing their lives and stories for an audience that may never exist. I thought about becoming a writer a lot when I was a kid since I liked books so much, but gave up on that around middle/high school. After learning about how shitty publishers can be and how rough some writers lives were (and how nearly all the good ones were on coke) I'm comfortable keeping my interest in it all just a hobby. Then again, maybe some of you really are working towards that as a career. I've heard technical writing is a decent job, but I've no idea what it pays. The only person I actually know who got into "writing" was a girl from school who studied journalism (then had to work at a grocery store to pay the bills anyway).

>>664 It'd be nice yeah. And shit I can do coke.