Saturday, May 25, 2013

Three Years of Hate - A Review

Matt Forney sent me a copy of "Three Years of Hate."  He also said he would be discontinuing the book for reasons I don't know and don't understand.  The reason why is it is a solid book that, though I don't agree with everything in, is going to benefit and serve its reader with not just entertainment, but wisdom, intellectual stimulation and the exercise of rethinking your own thoughts.

First it is very well written, perhaps too well.  His vocabulary had me looking up multiple words, giving me an unexpected vocabulary lesson.  But the flow, context, logic and structure of his writing was very enjoyable, as if you're just talking to a guy at a bar. 

Second, it is very thought provoking.  Something challenging your own philosophies, but more so he expands and advances current thought and philosophies (and this was originally written about 2-3 years ago). And not just in the real of courtship and dating, but politics, economics, and philosophy.

Third, I would say, though not intended to be a primer, it is a great introductory book for the young man or woman about to take the red pill.  It is not too elementary or basic, but neither too advanced or over one's head.  Not all of it is about red pill theory or questioning your world and premises, but it does address pretty much every major theory, thought, law and development that has been created in the Manosphere.

Fourth, it is blunt and visceral.  This may deter most female readers (who I would strongly recommend getting over his crass language and normal guy talk and instead listen to what he is trying to say), but it is precisely what makes this book a very enjoyable book.  It is a normal guy speaking normally, resulting in clear language that does not dance around societal-pleasantries and political correctness.  It is an example of what all men should be able to do in public and entice no criticism. 

Fifth, outright hilarious at time.  His "End of Night Game" is not only funny, but brilliant.  There are many phrases such as below:

I’ve always preferred to listen to news/talk radio when I’m in
the car. Music radio is a waste, re-playing the same five songs over and
over again. NPR is faux-intellectual drivel for SWPLs who want their
friends to think they’re cultured and smart. And I never really cared for
sports. There’s nothing like a good screaming rant from some middleaged
white guy to keep you awake during those long drives.

that will make you laugh your ass off.

Finally, typos.  I love typos.  You want to know why?  Because it shows the author spent more time coming up with ideas, thoughts, and philosophies than worry about the bleeping difference between a semi-colon and a regular-colon.  I read books for the intellectual stimulation and knowledge the author is attempting to convey.  Not to worry about whether a comma was in the right place or not.

About the only complaints I would have are two.  One, while Matt broaches the topic of race and race relations, 95% of what he says would only serve to help all people of all races, there is 5% I just cannot sign up on board with or have not thought through thoroughly myself to have an informed or at least wise opinion. Two, his economic observations are somewhat underdeveloped and immature.  He would benefit from doing more (albeit boring) data and empirical research on the FRED database than reading another philosopher wax poetically never citing a chart or data series.

All in all I would strongly recommend this book as it will only serve to help the reader and stimulate their mind.  I would also STRONGLY recommend it to women who want to see how men really are and what really goes through their minds.

It is available on Kindle and paperback.


Stoner With A Boner said...

unfortunately that place was overrun by White Nationalists...

I did, however, publish 5 articles there...

given the fact that you say you reserve 5%, you probably see a few things as "problematic"...

Captain Capitalism said...

Yeah, the white nationalists are a funny group.

Half of them want me to join them

and then when they find out I'm a technical jew,

they all hate me and want me to die.


Wilko said...

Read about two thirds of it around three weeks ago, so I hope I'm being fair on the guy...

I found that his criticisms of libertarianism as a political and economic system tended somewhat towards straw men and adhoms - citing Ayn Rand's "aspergery" humourlessness in one instance. I had to laugh in approval at that, but it's not the most robust argument.

Perhaps because of the ordering of the chapters I kept asking myself, ok, what is it you would advocate instead of libertarianism? Not having read any of his work before I spent the first half of the book wondering where he was coming from politically - classic liberal, paleocon? He eventually lays it out, and if memory serves me correctly, it ends up looking very Friedmanesque anyway?! So after scratching my head for a while I shrugged and figured that he probably has beef with anarcho-capitalism.

Anyway, this comment is long enough already!

Unknown said...

That pretty much summarizes it. They have this belief that you're in on some conspiracy to see the "white race" perish and not survive or some nonsense. There's also a lack of empiricism, intellectual rigor, and economic thought in their "arguments" anyway.

I don't know why any person here would want to take them seriously. They are a sad bunch running on fumes and trying to get attention to themselves and their cult.

There was even someone who identified as a White nationalist who made a video defending a member of the Altright group on YouTube and his decision to date an Asian woman and they all flipped out and turned on him.

According to their "logic," certain kinds of Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are supposed to possess the highest IQ out of all the different racial groups. I don't get why they would have turned on that person anyway if you abide by that sort of reasoning.

It's nothing an echo chamber kind of mysticism drowned in confirmation bias to me.

Wilko said...

I remember it a little more clearly now - when he laid out his (somewhat tongue in cheek) vision of a reformed America he called for retaliatory tariffs to protect domestic industries from their unscrupulous foreign counterparts - that rubbed me the wrong way.

I couldn't quite put my finger on it, since he never clearly articulated it, but I have a hunch that part of his beef with libertarianism is that it doesn't explicitly endorse traditional judeo-christian values??? I'm really reaching on that one though.