A Review of Mark Steyn’s America Alone

Mark Steyn’s book America Alone has been a New York Times best-seller, and a number 1 seller in Canada. Steyn is a well-known syndicated columnist. Many people accept the central thesis of this book. Many other best-selling books have made a similar argument, such as While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, Londonistan by Melanie Philips, and Eurabia by Bat Ye’or. What is America Alone’s central thesis? Well, the book is called America Alone, but in fact it is mostly about Europe.

According to Steyn “much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries”. In Europe “native populations are ageing and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic. The EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035”. Europe’s population will before long be “very old or very Muslim”. Either way Western Europe is almost certainly doomed. Europe is in the middle of a “population death-spiral” that has in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways. "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans and Muslims are profoundly changing Europe. Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1”. Europeans are “too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia. The average European Muslim has 3.5 children, whereas the average native woman has 1.5. Europe's successor population is already in place and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be. Europe is dying and America isn't”. Europe, says Steyn, is facing increasing violence from its Muslim population – such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands by a Muslim extremist. Europe could soon be run by Muslim fundamentalists and Islamicists.

So, that is a summary of Steyn’s argument. Scary stuff eh? No wonder the book has sold hundreds of thousands of copies in the US and Canada, and no wonder so many people are worried. Personally, I’m tempted to flee Europe right now this minute before the Muslim hordes take over the place.

Now, if Muslims are taking over Europe, we might reasonably ask, what proportion of the current population of the European Union is Muslim? Steyn never mentions this figure - a peculiar omission in a book which is about Muslims taking over Europe. So what proportion of Europeans are Muslim? 4%. Yes, that’s it: 4% maximum. 3% according to the CIA factbook. These 4% are going to take over the other 96%, according to Steyn. (The world as a whole, by the way, is about 24% Muslim. So Europe is a relatively Muslim-free corner of the world).

And what about this 4% figure anyway? It includes anyone who can possibly be considered a Muslim: secularised Muslims, moderate Muslims, traditional Muslims – as well as the hordes of swivel-eyed Jihadists galloping over the horizon to conquer Europe any second now. But surveys show time and again that a large majority of European Muslims do not want to live in a Muslim fundamentalist state. This is hardly surprising, since a majority of Muslims in the world also do not want to live in Muslim fundamentalist states – that’s why most Muslim fundamentalist states can only maintain their power by brutally oppressing the local Muslim population. Anyway, how Islamicists intend to establish an oppressive Muslim caliphate in Europe against the opposition of a majority of Europeans and against a majority of European Muslims, has yet to be given a persuasive explanation by Mark Steyn. But that does not stop him predicting it will happen.

If anything, the endangered species in Europe is not the non-Muslim Europeans, but the continent's Muslim immigrants. Muslim Europeans are, on average, poorer than other Europeans, more unemployed, less educated, subjected to discrimination and marginalised from positions of power. Steyn insists that countries such as the Netherlands and France are being submerged under an avalanche of Muslim lawlessness. But Muslims in these countries are relatively peaceful. The murder rate in America is 247% of what it is in France and 383% of what it is in the Netherlands. If you ask me, Americans like Steyn who are worried about violence should be fleeing their dangerous nation to go in live in peaceful countries like France and the Netherlands.

OK, I’m sure Steyn would concede that Europe is only 4% Muslim at the moment. But Steyn insists that Muslim Europeans are having more babies than non-Muslim Europeans. That 4% figure that he never mentions is going to grow, enabling Muslims eventually take over the continent. For example, the average Muslim in France, Steyn tells us, has 3 times as many children as the average non-Muslim French woman. He doesn’t tell us where he got this statistic. The fertility rate in France is 1.98 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate ). So the average Muslim woman in France is having well over 5 babies, according to Steyn. Now, most Muslims in France come from Muslim countries in North Africa like Algeria and Tunisia. What are the fertility rates of these countries? Well the fertility rate in Algeria is 1.82. In Tunisia it is 1.73. In both cases, the fertility rate is less than France. Now, unless the fertility rate of Muslims emigrating to France is suddenly shooting up by 300%, it cannot be the case that Muslims in France are having three times as many children as non-Muslim French. “Every Muslim woman in Western Europe is producing 3.5 children” Steyn instructs us. Like Germany for example? Most German Muslims come from Turkey. The fertility rate in Turkey is 2.14.

Question: Are Muslims in Germany suddenly having 3.5 babies each once they move to Germany or is Mark Steyn talking through his hole?

Answer: Mark Steyn is talking through his hole.

Is it the case that Europe is facing "demographic disaster"? The European Union, with its population of 450 million, is one of the most densely populated corners of the world. What about that low fertility rate? Actually, fertility rates are falling everywhere, including in the Muslim world. Steyn warns that fertility rates in Europe are below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Well, a list of non-European countries where fertility rates are below the replacement rate includes – China, Japan, Australia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, Lebanon, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan (and also American non-Hispanic whites by the way). All these countries have fertility rates below the replacement level. Almost everywhere else, fertility rates are falling fast – thankfully, given that the world is overpopulated. In general, the more wealthy and urbanised a country is, the lower its fertility rate is. The reason Europe has relatively low fertility rates is because it is wealthy and urbanised. For example, the countries in the world with the lowest fertility rates are Hong Kong and Singapore. Is Steyn worried about their future? If he is then he doesn’t even mention them. He just drones on endlessly about Europe. In any event, demographic predictions are notoriously inaccurate. Basing policies on dubious demographic extrapolations has been a favourite technique of sophists and cranks since at least the time of Malthus. To do so now, at a time when technological developments and increased mobility could alter populations in unforeseeable ways, is particularly feeble.

Final Question: is Mark Steyn a scaremongering fool indulging in Islamophobic fantasies in order to try and scare Europeans into accepting the anti-Muslim neocon foreign policies that he favours?

Answer: yes he is.

The snow is general all over Ireland

“A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.”

Is David McWilliams a demi-god or what?

Read this by David McWilliams, the only Irish columnist and commentator who has a clue, apart from Morgan Kelly.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/01/28/a-mortgage-plan-that-will-save-a-whole-generation

Here is Morgan Kelly writing in Aug 2008, before the international financial meltdown:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0815/1218747921594.html

Facebook Stalkers: what can one do?

A READER WRITES: “Dear Mr Barrington, I do understand that you feel the need for a sabbatical. Indeed, I feel in a somewhat similar situation myself. However, unlike you, it is my sanity that needs to soar to higher plains. You see, I am at odds with what to do with a certain Facebook friend. She is my ex-boyfriend's sister. I have attempted – unsuccessfully to remove her as a friend from Facebook twice. On both occasions, she has somehow lured me back. Just this week, I became her friend again. Don't get me wrong. I really like her, but in order to preserve my sanity in the long run, and to help me get over the break-up more swiftly, what is the correct protocol to use in such a delicate social-networking situation? Sincerely”

BB SAYS: Ah, Facebook. What are we going to do about Facebook? Can anything be done about Facebook? The question is an urgent one - one that surely merits a temporary suspension of my Sabbatical. I know some brave people who have refused to join. “I’m not signing up to that thing!” they insist, a little too forcefully. But one by one they fall. I know other people who have desperately tried to close their Facebook profiles … and failed. Try doing it yourself. You’ll be amazed at how difficult it will be, at how many hurdles will be thrown in your path. You think you can leave any time you want to do you? I have heard of a few dogged souls who have actual managed to close their Facebook profiles. But soon someone inevitably says to them: “Did you see the photos of such-and-such a person’s wedding up on Facebook?”. And inexorably they are pulled back in. Facebook is an unavoidable part of human existence. The common cold, taxes, death … and Facebook.

Given that Facebook is unavoidable, the only question that remains is: how to manage it? How many “friends” should one have, for example? Some people engage in a frantic competition to acquire as many “friends” as possible. If someone they know has more “friends” than they do, they panic, and experience pangs of social rejection. "Why does nobody love me?" they wail. Other people sporadically cull their “friends”. I know one person who recently had such a cull – starting with the people he had never heard of. Personally, I think the optimum number of friends is 66, because that is how many friends I have on Facebook myself.

Now, what to do about your particular problem? Do not be friends with this woman if you do not want to. Get rid of her! Do not explain. Do not apologise. If she comes back with yet another invite then just press the “Ignore” button. She will not receive a message saying “X has brutally rejected your kind offer of friendship”. Instead, she will receive nothing, and be left wondering whether you have actually received the invite, or seen the invite. If she sends the invite again, then ignore it again. Be ruthless. Eventually she will give up. Press the “Ignore” button, baby, PRESS IT NOW! Then you will feel you have regained control of your existence. You will feel elated, and free to get on with the next phase of life’s great adventure.

Reader thinks “unexamined life is well worth living”

A READER WRITES: “You quoted Socrates as saying that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’. Well I don’t examine my life at all, and personally I feel it is well worth living, thank you very much if you don’t mind all the same.”

BB SAYS: Good for you. But in order to have come to the conclusion that your life is worth living, then surely you must have first examined it in some sense, no?

SABBATICAL

Many readers have contacted me, wondering why there have not been too many posts today. I’m afraid I may need to reduce my blogging for the next while (for two days maybe) – in a belated attempt to salvage something of my marriage, my career, my health, my sanity, my life. In truth, I am exhausted. I can no longer carry the burden of my readers’ problems to the extent that I have been doing. If I were to have my own breakdown, then how could I still be expected to help others?

But fear not, I will still respond to truly urgent requests for help. I will not abandon you. No. I will not leave you.

In the meantime, I recommend that you re-read the existing posts. Savour them. Cherish them. Ponder them deeply. Print out the ones that mean the most to you, and carry them with you everywhere. You will find that these posts are literally inexhaustible. Their real meaning will only reveal itself to the most careful, thorough and diligent readers. But read no more than one or two posts a day, because there is a danger that the density of thought contained in them could lead to a mental overload, if you consume too many in one go.

Happy Philosophising. And remember the wise words of Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living".

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

David Brooks and the "Importance of Institutions"

A reader has drawn my attention to an article by David Brooks in today’s New York Times, in which Brooks praises the importance of institutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

David Brooks is a conservative. He is a Republican. He was a supporter of George Bush. He was a supporter of the Iraq War. He has, as far as I recall, equivocated about evolution and "intelligent" design. He was a supporter of John McCain. He has argued against Obama’s Keynesian program of fiscal expansion, and he is sympathetic to free-market fundamentalism. In short, he has been utterly wrong time and time again.

Now Brooks sees fit to instruct us about the dangers of "personal liberation", and tells us that we should learn to love institutions and "institutional thinking". Brooks tut-tuts about modern notions of "personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness". He warns against the idea that "individuals should learn to think for themselves". He cautions against the notion that people "should be skeptical of pre-existing arrangements" or that "they should break free from the way they were raised, examine life from the outside". Instead, Brooks sings the praises of "institutional thinking".

Conservatives often imply that things were better in the past, before people started getting uppity and demanding freedom. Conservatives can get away with arguing this because we have all largely forgotten just how crappy life was in the past. Are we to believe that things were better back when slavery existed? When women could not vote? When life-expectancy was about 40 years? When people were ruled by kings and priests? When homosexuals were persecuted? When most people were illiterate? When children worked in factories? When the vast majority of humanity lived like dogs? When women were burned as witches? When people were beheaded in the town square for the public’s entertainment?

The fact is: for most human beings this is the safest, most pleasant time to be alive in the entire history of humanity.

Conservatives always praise "traditions" because traditions apparently embody the cumulative wisdom of the ages. Which traditions are they talking about? The "tradition" of wife-burning that used to exist in India? The "tradition" of female genital mutilation?

The other tactic conservatives use is to argue that the progress in freedom up until now has been fine, but that it has now gone far enough, and that if we go any further society will collapse, and then you’ll all be sorry, just you wait and see, blah blah blah. This is what conservatives have always argued. If most of today’s conservatives had been around a few hundred years ago they would probably have been arguing in "moderate" tones that slavery is a useful institution and that slaves should learn to sing in their chains, because that is the cumulative wisdom of the ages, and that if slaves are set free society will collapse. They would have been telling us that women should get back in their kitchens where they can be happy, or else it will be the end of civilisation as we know it. They would have been telling us that the women they most admire are the ones who stay in their kitchens where they do the work that "gives meaning to their lives". They would have been musing about the "dangers of personal freedom", just like they are still musing about the "dangers of personal freedom".

As an example of Brook’s sophistic argumentation, consider the way he tries to blame progressives for undermining the "banking code" that previously made bankers behave themselves – thus precipitating the current financial collapse. What planet is he living on? When have bankers ever behaved themselves? What did the "banking code" accomplish back in the 1920 and 1930s when bankers did the exact same thing that they have just done now? It has been the progressives who have wanted to regulate banks, and Brook’s conservative chums who have encouraged deregulation. But somehow Brooks manages to blame all of this on the way progressives have been undermining institutions by promoting individualism.

So my question is: who cares Dave Brooks thinks? To hell with him!

“Are women not as funny as men?”

A READER WRITES: "Why is a GSOH important for men but not for women? It seems from observation it could even be a disadvantage for females in the mating game? What do your philosophers or evolutionary psychologists have to advise on this? Should women keep their ironic comments to themselves or at least confine them to their female friends? Perhaps they can give free rein if they are not on the
look-out for a rich authoritative handsome man with a GSOH?"

BB SAYS: Many men do find intelligent, funny women attractive - they especially look for intelligence and wit in prospective long-term partners, because spending your life with a boring simpleton is not much fun. However, there is a good deal of truth in what you say. Female comedians have often noted that their sense of humour does not give them quite the same sexual pull that their male equivalents seem to have. Why not?

From biological point of view, this difference is ultimately explained by our evolutionary history. DNA analysis tells us that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Competition among men for sexual partners was stiffer. In short, in order to attract partners men needed to try and do more to stand out from the crowd. This explains why so many men engage in seemingly irrational, dumb behaviour. It explains why it was so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions where they will almost certainly die, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things. On average, men needed to do more showing off than women. Men go to extremes more than women. Being funny is one of numerous ways of trying to show off and saying "Look at me! Please consider having sex with me!"

Now, many men feel threatened by women who are their equal in intelligence and success. But women are, on average, at least as intelligent as men. So what should women do? There are essentially two strategies and most women deploy a combination of both. One strategy is to say "I am going to display my intelligence and wit – and if men don’t like it then that is their problem. I want a man who is strong enough to cope with the fact that I am intelligent and funny". The other strategy consists of women to some extent disguising their intelligence and wit, so as not to appear too threatening to men. The female sense of humour is often more subtle and understated – women often save the savage stuff for their female friends. Their humour often focuses more on witty self-deprecation. These strategies allow women to successfully manipulate men in order to get what they want from life. It’s not that difficult for women to do this because they generally have higher social and emotional intelligence than men.

Most women have a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence. This is not the case with men. There are far fewer autistic women, for example. And even many men who are not technically autistic display quasi-autistic characteristics. Some people regard autism as simply an extreme version of the male brain. When a woman says she wants a man with a GSOH, she is really saying "I want a man with a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence. I want a man who is not a social weirdo, because so many of the men I meet are weirdos". Because the vast majority of women have a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence, there is less need for them to engage in competitive, overt displays of these skills, even if they have them. Put simply: there are far fewer female weirdos. Hence this demand for a GSOH in men – there is a demand for it because emotional and social intelligence is much more scare among men. If you think about it, very few men are in the slightest bit funny - it's just that we all notice the few that are.

In any event, you sound to me like a funny woman who is more than capable of finding a funny partner, with whom you will be able to enjoy sharing each other’s wit and humour.

Reader wants boyfriend to “buy me small presents”

A READER WRITES: “I want to get my boyfriend to buy me small surprise presents like I do for him. He says how thoughtful I am, but never buys them for me. He does buy me stuff and is very generous, but it's the small things isn't it? Or - should I stop whinging and get over it, sure amn't I lucky to have a boyfriend at all what with the recession and obama and all that kind of carry on? [i feel i should mention either the recession/obama/both in order to seem learned for your audience] ”

BB SAYS: This is an extremely common problem for women. They buy their boyfriends lots of little presents in the hope that he will “get the message” and buy lots of little presents in return.

In general men and women have a completely different attitude when it comes to presents. Men cannot understand what the big deal is. At the mere thought of buying a present, men are overcome with nausea, panic and despair. Consequently, they avoid buying presents unless they absolutely have to - and even then they sometimes don't do it. Few things bewilder them or frighten men more than the thoughts of having to try and buy someone a present. But it does not mean they don't love you.

Many women, on the other hand, live for presents. A well-chosen present demonstrates that you have been thinking about the other person, and that you understand what they want and what they like. It shows that you have made the effort to get inside their head and their heart. Hence the squeals of delight whenever a woman receives a present.

So a handy tip for men: if you want to impress a woman, just buy her a little gift. Women are absolute suckers for this kind of thing. As for women, I am afraid that, unless your boyfriend is a feminine homosexual, he is unlikely to buy you lots of little gifts on a frequent basis.

READER ANALYSIS

I have been analysing statistics of the readers of this site. I would like to say a big hello to all my readers in Belgium, Canada, China and Finland. Who the hell are you people? I would also like to especially thank the 3 readers who have each logged on to the site over 100 times in the past 4 days. Fair play to you, whoever you are.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

“How can I get a promotion in the office?”

A READER WRITES: “I keep on getting passed over for promotion in the office. My boss is driving me mad. What can I do to improve my career?”

BB SAYS: Corporations are essentially feudal organisations – they are private tyrannies and deeply hierarchical. Your bosses completely control your destiny within the organisation. Hence, there is only one way to progress within any institution or organisation: suck up to your superiors. This rule applies in all organisations, whether companies, clubs, schools, political parties, universities or whatever.

According to the philosopher Aristotle: the great-souled man is insolent to his superiors, but gently ironic towards his inferiors. The great-souled man resents authority – he has what is now known as a “problem with authority”. Similarly, the great-souled man behaves with kindness towards his inferiors, since he does not feel threatened by them. The great-souled man is magnanimous.

In order to succeed in an organisation you need to follow a very simple rule: be the opposite of Aristotle’s great-souled man. Be a small-souled man, or a mean-spirited man. Be servile and submissive to your bosses. Flatter them. Grovel before them. Snivel. Humiliate yourself before them. In contrast, bully and harass your own sub-ordinates. Terrorise them.

If you follow these rules, you will certainly get a promotion. Then you will have a new boss, and the process can begin all over again.

Boring Suburbs and Feng Shui

A READER WRITES: “Dear BB - I live in a very dreary, souless part of town and I think this is why i feel very down sometimes. I would love to live in a place with nice scenery and buildings. Then I wonder if I am just a gloomy person and would I be any better elsewhwere. Do you think our environment counts a lot. Do you know anything about feng shui or do you think it would help me to look into that?”

BB SAYS: Certainly, where you live can affect your mood. The long, dark winters make many of us depressed, and we cheer up again in the brighter summers. It all depends on what kind of person you are – some people could never get by without the buzz of city life; others hate all that pollution and noise, and want to be close to nature. I am sympathetic to the view that each era of our lives is best suited to a different type of environment. When we are young, we should live in the centre of great cities, where we can meet people, have adventures and soak up the excitement of big city life. When we are raising families we should live in the suburbs. And when we are older, we should repair to the countryside, where we can enjoy the pleasures of nature and rural pursuits. Decide what stage of life you are at, or what kind of person you are, and act accordingly. Alan de Botton has written a book called the Architecture of Happiness, which may be of some use to you.

However, remember that all our problems are not likely to be solved by changing where we live. Recall the slogan: Wherever you go, there you are!

FENG SHUI:

On the broadest level, Feng Shui is the notion that we should surround ourselves with beauty, gentleness, kindness, sympathy, music, and with various expressions of the sweetness of life – by doing so we ennoble ourselves as well as our environment. Who could disagree with that?

However, alleged masters of Feng Shui now hire themselves out for hefty sums to tell people such as Donald Trump which way his doors and other things should hang. Feng shui has become another New Age "energy" scam with arrays of metaphysical products from paper cutouts of half moons and planets to octagonal mirrors to wooden flutes offered for sale to help you improve your health, maximize your potential, and guarantee fulfillment of some fortune cookie philosophy.

But don’t let the fact that Feng Shui is nonsense turn you off it. Human beings love nonsense. Nonsense is fun. Enjoy Feng Shui, even if it is all a big pile of bollocks. Just don’t waste any of your money hiring a “Master of Feng Shui”.

How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read

A READER WRITES: “I recommend that Chris reads 'How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read' by Pierre Bayard. I thought it was a great book.

BB SAYS: Yes, that’s a good little read, and it addresses many of the issues that Chris raises in his post, such as why people pretend to like books that they do not really like, and why they pretend to have read books that they have not really read. Pierre Bayard is a French academic who teaches literature at universities for a living. He gives lectures on Proust, even though he says he has only ever skimmed through In Search of Lost Time. He says he frequently pontificates about Joyce’s Ulysses, even though he has never read it. He says that not having read a book is not necessarily any reason not to talk about it or not to have an opinion about it.

As a general rule, we can divide human beings into those who read too little and those who read too much. Often we don’t give due consideration to the problem of reading too much. The philosopher Schopenhauer once said that reading can frequently become a substitute for thinking. Reading can also damage your imagination and creativity – how many great writers from history have PhDs in Literature? A scholar has been defined as: someone who gets paid to read the books that are too boring for the rest of us to read. In general, I try to follow Flaubert’s advice: read in order to live.

(Confession to my readers: I have not actually read How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read by Pierre Bayard, but readers will note how this did not prevent me from discussing it knowledgeably and intelligently).

“Is Gwyneth Paltrow Human?”

A READER WRITES: "I subscribe to Gwyneth Paltrow's GOOP mails. They really annoy me because she really annoys me, but out of curiosity and the hope that some day she'll seem less like an alien I keep letting them fly into my inbox. Today's one was all these people saying what their favourite books were. She said and I agree that 'The best way to escape (not to mention the least expensive, most hassle-free way) is to curl up by the fire with an amazing, transportive novel.'

She then ruins it all with this gem 'This week I have asked a couple of my best and most literary-minded girlfriends to share their top picks. These are the women who read voraciously and with passion. No TV for them before bed (I need a little something, even 10 minutes of "The X Factor" or a forensic pathology documentary, just something, for Lord's sake!).'

As if aliens really watch x factor. She's all 'I'm human, honest!!'

I don't believe for a second that these are these people's actual favourite books, but rather the books that they hope will lead people to draw the conclusions about them that they want them to. Do you agree?

I am trying to read more, and would like you to recommend a lovely story to me and in return here's my suggestion, it's the last book I read that I loved and was so sad to finish, Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. I know it's been out ages but I was put off because I thought it was about the place in England. It's not.

In summary – book recommendations please. Thanks. Chris"

BB SAYS: You are quite correct. When people provide lists of their “books of the year” or “what I am reading” it is nearly always an attempt to create an impression about themselves: “Look at all these high-brow books I am reading! Look how intelligent I am!”.

But, as you can see from this site, I repeatedly name-drop heavy-weight intellectuals in order to try and make myself appear more cultured than I actually am. So I am not the person to ask about this. However, I really enjoyed Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road”.

If any other reader has suggestions of good reads, or good stories, nothing too pretentious, for Chris, then please put them in the comments section.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Ex-boyfriend Plays Games

A READER WRITES: “My ex-boyfriend was some of the best sex I ever had even though I still have issues with the way he had a schedule and put me in a position to ask for sex. At times he would humiliate me and pretend to be disinterested so I'd
end up begging him. I know he enjoyed our time together as much as I did and I think that he was an idiot to play such dumb games. I never thought we would have lasted forever but I have to admit that I still think of him when I pleasure myself and sometimes hope that I could have a random encounter with him. Too bad he was a game player. Why do men play games? Why can't they be open about their feelings? Why do they try to manipulate their partners instead of opening up to them? I'd love to hear your opinion”

BB SAYS: Both women and men play games. In the game of love, people will use all sorts of subterfuges. If you are too enthusiastic too quickly, you give the impression that you are desperate, and that sets off alarm bells in potential partners. They think “if this person had other options they would not be so into me so quickly. And if this person has no other good options then it probably means there is something wrong with them. I could probably do better”. But if you show no interest at all, the person might just give up. Similarly, if you let someone manipulate you and humiliate you, that is also a sign of desperation. It’s a delicate dance, as each side tries to work out what the other is feeling without giving too much away themselves.

By keeping you in the dark about his real feelings for you, this man kept you on edge – the uncertainty is what made it so exciting. By not showing that he was interested in you, he conveyed the impression that he was better than you, and that you were lucky to be with him. Eroticism feeds on uncertainty and unpredictability. Certainty is the death of Eros. He worked out how to manipulate you.

Women often complain that men will not “talk about their feelings” or that their men will not “open up to them”. The trouble is that most men find talking about their feelings incredibly boring. That is if they have any feelings – often they don’t. Many men just want to drink beer, watch football and take the piss out of each other. To have a woman droning on about her feelings all the time is exhausting and draining. Talk about your feelings with your female friends – that is what they are for. One of the chief reasons men break up with women is because “she was wrecking my head analysing our relationship all the time and asking me how I feel about things”.

But, as I have said before: in order for a relationship to work there needs to be compromise on both sides - women need to talk about their feelings a bit less, and men need to talk about their feelings a bit more.

It sounds to me like this man had a hold over you. You deserve someone nicer.

“Burning with a Jealous Rage"

A READER WRITES: “Dear Brian, I have to travel abroad for long stretches as part of my job. This involves leaving my wife at home in the care of my best friend. My wife isn't from Ireland and so I'm thankful that there are people around to look after her when I'm not there. The problem is that I don't entirely trust my friend. He is a complex character, egotistical, self-absorbed, effeminate and a sexual predator – he’s had a string of girlfriends and possibly children across eastern europe.

Lately I've started to worry that he pays my wife too much attention and this anxiety has started to gnaw away at me. I am sad to say that I am burning with jealousy. Almost every evening when I phone home he happens to be there drinking and eating with her. The last thing I want to do is upset my wife or my friend by giving them the impression that I don't trust them.

So how can I get it across that I'm not comfortable with the present situation in a way that they will understand without causing a ruction? It's 4am where I am right now and I just can't sleep with this problem. I've started to fantasise about taking my friend hiking and pushing him off a cliff. Isn't this an awful way to think? What can I do? desperately yours.”

BB SAYS: Jealousy is a normal part of healthy relationships – we fear that our partners will meet someone better than us, and have sex with them, or fall in love with them, or run off with them. We fantasise about killing our potential sexual rivals. This is human nature. Your experience of jealousy demonstrates that you love your wife – you don’t want to lose her to another man. This is a good thing.

Personally, your friend does not sound to me like he is a better option for your wife than you are. You work hard and you love your wife. If she has any sense, she will not risk all that for a dalliance with an egotistical, self-absorbed predator. Jealousy has been defined as “Unduly concerned about the preservation of that which can be lost only if not worth keeping”. If your wife runs off with this effeminate fool, then you are better off without her, and you can find someone else. Personally, I do not think she will - she just hangs around with this guy as a way of passing the time when you are not there, but really she wants to be with you.

I would also ask you this question: Why have you chosen this egotistical, self-absorbed, predator as your closest friend? What does that say about you? In general, people choose friends who are similar to them. Good people have good friends. You sound like a good person. Why are you involved with this dreadful specimen?

“What’s so great about philosophy?”

A READER WRITES: “You keep banging on about philosophy, as if it were the solution to all our problems. What’s so great about philosophy? What is philosophy anyway?”

BB SAYS: The word “Philosophy” comes from the Ancient Greek philo-sophia, which literally means “love of wisdom”. A philosopher is a lover of wisdom – someone who seeks to attain the wisdom that he is aware he does not yet possess. But what is this “wisdom”?

A Wise Man possesses self-consciousness or self-knowledge. He knows what he is doing and why he is doing it. From the perspective of wisdom, the most important knowledge is knowledge of how to live. Self-knowledge, knowledge of human nature, teaches us how to live in order to be as happy as it is possible to be. It teaches how to live in order to have the experiences that bring us joy. For this reason, the proper study of man is man. Wisdom is expertise in the art of living – and that is the wise man’s speciality, and what the philosopher strives to attain – he strives to make progress in wisdom. From this perspective, philosophy is not a subject, nor a topic, nor a branch of knowledge. Philosophy is a way of life. It is the way of life of those who seek wisdom.

In the parable of the cave in Plato’s Republic, Socrates makes the classical statement of what a philosopher is. Humans are imprisoned in the cave, trapped by myths, ignorance, conventions, prejudices, ideologies, false beliefs, self-deceptions, superstitions, and the opinions that they have grown up with, which often originate in their families, societies or particular "tribes". People take these myths, these images on the wall of the cave, to be the truth. Consequently, they have a distorted view of reality, and of what they need to be happy. Reason liberates the philosopher from these myths and prejudices, and shows him how to escape the cave, and experience the bliss and joy that come from overcoming these myths, knowing the truth, and living in the real world - not living according to convention, but according to nature, as discovered by reason. The liberated, enlightened philosopher therefore fulfils his human nature in a way that those who accept conventions and myths do not.

The philosopher Leibniz says that "wisdom is the science of happiness. This is what we must study more than any other science, because nothing is more desirable than happiness". What is the means by which wisdom, and therefore happiness, can be attained? "We should make use of reason as much as is possible in order to know goods and evils, and in order to distinguish the great from the small, and the false from the true; in order to decide what should be done and not done in the course of this life. In a word, it is necessary to understand what reason commands, and from that comes wisdom".

This, in my opinion, is what philosophy entails.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

“Am I a stupid socialist?”

A READER WRITES: “I once read a quote somewhere to this effect: ‘If one is not a Socialist in his twenties, then one has no heart. However if one is still a Socialist in his thirties, then one has no brain’. I have recently turned thirty and find myself still adhering to a 'quasi' Socialist ideology. Does this mean that I am stoop-id?? Yours worriedly

PS: I read your article on Schopenhauer’s Pessimism. I liked it, but find it slightly irksome that what I consider to be Realism, is constantly rebranded as Pessimism by others.”

BB SAYS: No, it means you are smart. You see through the free-market propaganda and ideology that has facilitated a bunch of greedy scumbags to wreak havoc on the world economy. People who have given up on social justice and progress have no heart – they are missing something. Ultimately people should find a Golden Mean between the head and the heart. We must be realistic idealists, or idealistic realists. Socialism and Progressivism are about to become hot again.

Even, Karl Marx, a philosopher who has been out of fashion for the last couple of decades, is due a Renaissance:

"Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks which will have to be nationalised and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism." Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867

“My husband’s philosophical mania”

A READER WRITES: "My husband has got it into his head that he can help people,
that he can solve their problems. So he spends most of his time interfering with
people and offering them disastrous advice. Now you might think this is noble -
given your own occupation with this site - but really my husband cannot run his
own life properly never mind other peoples'. He is completely delusional and has
a kind of mania about philosophising to people. Unfortunately I think your site
is encouraging him and deepening his obsession. What do you advise as a cure for
a man who needs to feed his own ego by setting himself up as some kind of
Oracle?"

BB SAYS: You raise an interesting issue: Why should you listen to anyone’s advice? Why, for example, should you listen to my advice?

The answer is: generally you shouldn’t listen to people's advice. Most advice is rubbish. How can someone else know more about your problems than you do? It’s unlikely. Also, when people give advice they frequently have their own agenda – and it might not be your agenda. What is their motive? Most advice is not worth listening to.

However, some advice is worth listening to. After all, you don’t want to be isolated and bereft of valuable information that might come from other people. Other people are a potential source of beneficial advice and information. But which people?

Listen to the advice of people who seem to be happy, good, and in control of their lives. Personally, I have always found the advice of the great philosophers to be the most useful to me. Evaluate all advice you are given – if it seems like the person is talking sense, if what they say chimes with your own experience, if you find yourself saying: "Yes, that is what I feel and what I think and what I experience", then perhaps the person is worth listening to. If not, then search elsewhere for sound advice.

As regards your husband, I suspect that most people cheerfully ignore his advice and his philosophising. It seems mostly like a harmless hobby. Don’t be too hard on him.

"I hate speaking in public"

A READER WRITES; Hello there, I have some challenges in my life that maybe you can help me with. The main one is fear of public speaking. In my job I have to give presentations to rooms filled with people very regularly. Unfortunately before each event I become stupefied with terror and even the grains of effexor that I steal from my mother don't help to calm me down. My palms sweat, my throat dries up and I know I look utterly paniced to passers by.

Someone once gave me the advice that I should picture the audience in their underwear - I'm not sure what this is supposed to achieve but the one time I tried it I got so distracted by the outlandish things that people wear under their work clothes that I couldn't concentrate. It got me to thinking that it would be fun to turn up at a public talk one day not wearing any underwear and sit up front and centre. Then when the speaker starts to imagine he'll get quite the surprise when it comes to me.

Anyway we can joke but this is a serious problem for me. When I speak I am afraid of looking afraid. I'm afraid of forgetting my material. I'm afraid of being boring. I'm also afraid that a woman hiding inside the lectern will surreptitiously fellate me while I try to present. I think this latter fear comes from watching Police Acadamy ten times or more when I was 8 years old.

So what to do? Is this pure ego - can I transcend my terrors? Should I just look for a job with not speaking role? I don't see this happening to others. What is wrong with me?

BB SAYS: First, there’s nothing wrong with you. Nearly everyone finds public speaking daunting and traumatic. You may not SEE it happening to others but inside it is happening to them. And you may think that your panic is visible to others, but it may not be like that at all - if you saw a video of yourself speaking you might be surprised how calm and competent you look. Even many speakers who appear calm and in control are terrified inside. Fear is natural and needs to be accepted. Fear of public speaking is an extremely common trait in human beings that can be traced back to our early evolution to help track what others think of us. The fear of being excommunicated from the community is literally hard-wired in us. The goal, then, should not be the complete elimination of something that is etched in our psyche - instead we need to examine the situations that set it off and try to inhibit it.

In my experience, the best way to manage it is to practice. Lots of it. Know every word of what you are going to say inside out - go over the presentation with your partner over and over again, or with someone else. Know every word on every slide. Practice with these people. You will be dreadful. You will panic in front of them. But if you practice enough then on the day it will come flowing out.

On the day itself, you just need to be afraid and speak anyway. As stupid as this seems, it’s possibly the most reliable way to gain confidence in speaking. Be afraid, be nervous, be hesitant, but do it anyway. I know this is a cliché, but it is true. Think about what you are doing in the presentation: all you are doing is speaking. You speak all the time. You are able to speak. There is no reason not to be able to do it.

Programs like Toastmasters have proved time and again that any fear, even public speaking, can be managed through practice. You may still experience anxiety but you will have the tools to manage it and make your presentations easier on yourself. Join Toastmasters.

http://www.toastmasters.ie/

It is scary to go to your first meeting and then to give your first speech, but it is a very supportive group. Many, if not most, of the people there will feel the same way as you. It is also inexpensive, and you can work at your own pace. In the beginning, there are smaller roles that you can volunteer for if you do not feel ready to give a speech (such as introducing a vocabulary word to the group or telling a joke).

If that does not work, and speaking is still making you miserable, then consider a change of career.