Sure it's informative and offers one insider's view, and Glen may be a decent feller, but he's pretty boring. Not a crime, but not enticing either.Marky Dread wrote: ↑10 Oct 2018, 8:24amI liked Glen's book but then I read it the day it was released and he was the first Pistol to get a book out (1990). It's obviously only a brief part of the Pistols story and goes for facts over sensationalism but Glen was there from the start and the book has some early detail not mentioned in Rottens : No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs. I'm always interested in the early days of the Pistols before the rot set in. Some of Rottens claims in his book are false like Glen going back in the studio after he left to help out on Bollocks.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑10 Oct 2018, 6:31amI've read it but it made very little impression on my memory. Pretty bland stuff, like the recollections of a minor regional civil servant.Silent Majority wrote: ↑10 Oct 2018, 2:43amNow my nerdy completist side won't be soothed till I've read Matlock's stupid looking bloody book.
Whatcha reading?
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Finished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Fear - Bob Woodward. Audiobook. A better book than Fire & Fury, if an equally massively depressing book. A husk fails continually. Could not stand working for that self satisfied dissembling piece of shit. Luckily, anyone who chooses to be in that White House deserves their terrible experience and their brown tongues.
Re: Whatcha reading?
I tend to think it would have turned out about the same under Trotsky. At least for a while. Maybe they would have gone into WW2 a bit stronger given the Red Army was Trotsky’s baby. But he was a bit of a Napoleon himself.Silent Majority wrote: ↑13 Oct 2018, 9:02amFinished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Different groups of people being exiled or killed, but a totalitarian is going to kill and control regardless.eumaas wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 8:40amI tend to think it would have turned out about the same under Trotsky. At least for a while. Maybe they would have gone into WW2 a bit stronger given the Red Army was Trotsky’s baby. But he was a bit of a Napoleon himself.Silent Majority wrote: ↑13 Oct 2018, 9:02amFinished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
The bolsheviks were elitist and authoritarian from the off, and made more so by having to fight a very bloody set of international capitalist invasions at the same time of vicious forces of reaction with the whites. While they were brilliant gravediggers of the old order, circumstances didn't allow them to empower the people enough to lay safe foundations for the future.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 9:03amDifferent groups of people being exiled or killed, but a totalitarian is going to kill and control regardless.eumaas wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 8:40amI tend to think it would have turned out about the same under Trotsky. At least for a while. Maybe they would have gone into WW2 a bit stronger given the Red Army was Trotsky’s baby. But he was a bit of a Napoleon himself.Silent Majority wrote: ↑13 Oct 2018, 9:02amFinished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Which is to say that circumstances forced them to be monsters. But any ideology that requires ideal circumstances to fulfill its promise is too precious a flower to survive. Communists and libertarians alike tend to pull out the "[blank] has never really been tried because of [reasons]" as for why their nonsense doesn't work in reality.Silent Majority wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 2:02pmThe bolsheviks were elitist and authoritarian from the off, and made more so by having to fight a very bloody set of international capitalist invasions at the same time of vicious forces of reaction with the whites. While they were brilliant gravediggers of the old order, circumstances didn't allow them to empower the people enough to lay safe foundations for the future.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 9:03amDifferent groups of people being exiled or killed, but a totalitarian is going to kill and control regardless.eumaas wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 8:40amI tend to think it would have turned out about the same under Trotsky. At least for a while. Maybe they would have gone into WW2 a bit stronger given the Red Army was Trotsky’s baby. But he was a bit of a Napoleon himself.Silent Majority wrote: ↑13 Oct 2018, 9:02amFinished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Whatcha reading?
I tend to still believe as long as your system has authoritarianism of a central minority party at its core, it will go off the rails. And even 'Libertarianism' has that, it just puts the unspoken authoritarianism into the boardrooms of private institutions.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 2:32pmWhich is to say that circumstances forced them to be monsters. But any ideology that requires ideal circumstances to fulfill its promise is too precious a flower to survive. Communists and libertarians alike tend to pull out the "[blank] has never really been tried because of [reasons]" as for why their nonsense doesn't work in reality.Silent Majority wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 2:02pmThe bolsheviks were elitist and authoritarian from the off, and made more so by having to fight a very bloody set of international capitalist invasions at the same time of vicious forces of reaction with the whites. While they were brilliant gravediggers of the old order, circumstances didn't allow them to empower the people enough to lay safe foundations for the future.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 9:03amDifferent groups of people being exiled or killed, but a totalitarian is going to kill and control regardless.eumaas wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 8:40amI tend to think it would have turned out about the same under Trotsky. At least for a while. Maybe they would have gone into WW2 a bit stronger given the Red Army was Trotsky’s baby. But he was a bit of a Napoleon himself.Silent Majority wrote: ↑13 Oct 2018, 9:02amFinished Steve's book, good fun read.
Russia In Revolution: An Empire In Crisis - S A Smith. Audiobook. A fair, balanced, well sourced book about the revolution from 1890 to 1926. It l concludes that Stalinism has a foundation in Lenin's structure, but that if Trotsky or someone else had taken over after the leader died then things would have been better.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
It's not a coincidence that libertarians regard democracy—in terms of elections and public institutions, where all citizens have equal say—with great suspicion. They'll couch it in terms of tyranny of the state, but it's really a rejection of the idea that those without capital should be able to hold any kind of power over those with capital. So, certainly, libertarianism's authoritarian impulse is an expression of it seeing real power in capital not some airy-fairy idea of representative government. Public monopoly makes a slave of us all, but private monopoly is just natural truth as expressed in the market. I honestly fail to appreciate meaningful difference between Communists and libertarians when it comes to their attitude to public good.Wolter wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 3:11pmI tend to still believe as long as your system has authoritarianism of a central minority party at its core, it will go off the rails. And even 'Libertarianism' has that, it just puts the unspoken authoritarianism into the boardrooms of private institutions.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 2:32pmWhich is to say that circumstances forced them to be monsters. But any ideology that requires ideal circumstances to fulfill its promise is too precious a flower to survive. Communists and libertarians alike tend to pull out the "[blank] has never really been tried because of [reasons]" as for why their nonsense doesn't work in reality.Silent Majority wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 2:02pmThe bolsheviks were elitist and authoritarian from the off, and made more so by having to fight a very bloody set of international capitalist invasions at the same time of vicious forces of reaction with the whites. While they were brilliant gravediggers of the old order, circumstances didn't allow them to empower the people enough to lay safe foundations for the future.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 9:03amDifferent groups of people being exiled or killed, but a totalitarian is going to kill and control regardless.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Zachary Taylor - Johnny Boy Eisenhower. I expect dullness from my Presidents between Jackson and Lincoln. It's a truism that in that period the energy and drama was in the senate with Henry Clay, John C Calhoun and Daniel Webster. Ah, boy but was this boring fucking story. The Mexican War, at least as presented from the top-down, is one of the most uniquely unengaging events in world history - one that my be devoid of scintillating personalities. When Winfield Scott is providing charcater, you're in ta-rouble. And that's what dominates this short book about an unremarkable man. Old Rough and Ready, they called him, more out of an acknowledgment that a nineteenth century American General had to have a nickname like that than as any descriptor of who he was. He died shortly into term, kicking the issues of the day into the hands of people even less prepared to do good than himself. I don't get those who cheerfully wonder if the civil war could have been prevented or delayed. That was a revolution that should have happened sooner and the forces at work made it inevitable. Leaving it any later would only have made it bloodier and longer, most likely. The author, Ike's son, is perfectly servicable.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
If I haven't mentioned it before, I love your insane masochistic project to read a bio of every American president. I like the completeness of the goal, but having to plow thru the likes of Millard Fillmore and Benjamin Harrison to do it is hilarious.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Millard Fillmore next, son. I also find it very funny and stupid. Luckily, Arthur Schlesinger's American President series that I'm using for a lot of these no-marks rarely maxes out beyond 200 pages.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 6:22amIf I haven't mentioned it before, I love your insane masochistic project to read a bio of every American president. I like the completeness of the goal, but having to plow thru the likes of Millard Fillmore and Benjamin Harrison to do it is hilarious.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Audiobook:
I read it when it came out but came across the audio version and decided to engage in something light, tho still senses-shattering for a bit.
I read it when it came out but came across the audio version and decided to engage in something light, tho still senses-shattering for a bit.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18735
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
If you rate that l, I'll probably check it out.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 6:10pmAudiobook:
I read it when it came out but came across the audio version and decided to engage in something light, tho still senses-shattering for a bit.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116573
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Oh yeah, it's a fun little narrative, definitely of the celebratory type.Silent Majority wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 1:34amIf you rate that l, I'll probably check it out.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 6:10pmAudiobook:
I read it when it came out but came across the audio version and decided to engage in something light, tho still senses-shattering for a bit.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft