Luna the Great of all the Russias

I do not think I really have a favorite genre. If I like song, I like song. What is your opinion on this?

There are certain books I want but are difficult to obtain as they are rather expensive; usually these are books are about 40 years old or older and seem to have only had one edition published.

I do not know. I have generally been ignoring news for the past several months. I hear about some things, but I have not been actively reading news myself. Black licorice: delicacy or abomination?

I am interested in books on economic theory or history, history of nations, ideologies, realpolitik, and geopolitics. I do not read much fiction.

I took the 45 question one due to lack of patience. I expect if I were to take this test again, there would be differences in results just from the different ways I interpret questions. Federal vs Unitary: Generally, any system that minimizes centralized control is a good one. Democracy vs Authority: Trouble here is that I do not consider Democracy being synonymous with Liberty; I see democracy as a means for people to slowly vote away liberty as they tend to be more interested in getting "free stuff" from the government rather than reduce the role of government. I would more than happily give away my right to vote if given the option being ruled by dictators dedicated to maintaining a free market and the protection of private property (with police and military), nothing else (no "free" healthcare, no welfare, no work regulations, no anti-monopoly laws, no "free" education, etc). Globalist vs Isolationist: I do not really know what globalism is supposed to mean. It is a term I hear often, but I guess my way of thinking has not much been on this particular axis. Militarist vs Pacifist: In a perfect world, there is no need for military. But if the only option is to have a country be aligned to our side or a rival power, especially if the country is of strategic importance, then any means to have them on our will be used including military occupation and undermining their government. It was politically correct to be a Pacifist during the interwar years; no one wanted to hear about how Hitler was a potential threat because anyone who uttered anything in favor of militarization was labelled "a merchant of death" or other insults. Security vs Freedom: This is a trickier one for me. It is the legitimate role of government to protect its people from enemies. But at the same time, every time a crisis occurs, it serves as a rationale for the government's power to be permanently more centralized. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government policy. Equality vs Markets: I am nearly a pure Capitalist. The only things that prevent me from becoming an Anarcho-Capitalist are that I believe the police and military should be kept as government functions rather than privatized. I consider egalitarianism a false god. And anything that strays further away from laissez-faire markets results in more room for special interests and bureaucracies (the two terms I have been using quite often recently) from becoming more influential and siphoning off of the productivity of the rest of the population. Secular vs Religious: I do not believe religious texts should directly be made into law nor the role of government to try to convert people to this or that religion. But I am suspicious of the claim that an Atheist society can stay cohesive for an extended period of time. I recall that civilizations that lose its religious convictions tend to be ones in its period of decline. 1 + 1 is truth but it is not a morally guiding principle. God cannot be proven yet I am inclined to believe that it has far greater potential to keep societies cohesive. I already hear objections that many wars were fought in the past precisely because of religion. But I would say that a belief in equality, for example, is just as arbitrary as a believe in God; any moral value we adopt can be, in some way, considered to be completely arbitrary. Progress vs Tradition: This strikes me as too vague. Technological progress is undoubtedly good because it makes us richer. However, whether "social progress" is good is far more questionable. In the present era, it seems that unlimited self-expression and costless social acceptance are seen as the ultimate good and to hold this view would be considered "Progressive". When it comes to "social progress", the question I would ask is if one recognizes there is such a thing as degeneracy in the first place? Personally, I do not believe it to be the role of government to force people to behave in this or that way (except any action that would lead to the violation of private property rights), but at the same time people should be free to associate with and dis-associate from anyone they wish even if purely due to bigoted reasons. While I would not outlaw polygamy if given the choice, for example, I would suspect that a polygamous society is more likely to dissolve as they are more violent than monogamous ones; that is, I would consider the degree to which something is considered degenerate is how much of an impact it would have in dismantling social cohesion if it were normalized. Assimilationist vs Multicultaralist: A multicultural country is more susceptible to collapse due to inter-cultural conflicts than a cohesive one. But while those are my inclination, whether a country is more assimilation or multicultural should ideally be determined by the people themselves through their interaction (or lack thereof) with one another rather than having the government try to push people one way or the other.

It must have been a long time ago as I do not remember. When was the last time you got an injury but you do not know why you got it (unexplained bruises, cuts, etc.)?

When people look at atrocities committed in the past, people would like to think that they would be among the people who would stand against it. But in reality, the vast majority of people do not have sufficient moral character and will compromise their morality by being complicit; many of the truly good people die. Of the people who claim that they would act morally, it is probably more accurate that only .1% of them will actually act as they speak.

An advantage of dictatorships over democracies is that dictators are capable of planning the direction of their country decades ahead of time whereas democratic leaders are inherently short-sighted people as they can only plan until the next election.

You are become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

I have been buying books far more quickly than I am able to read them.

Possibly Aleksandr II. I would inform him where his would-be assassin would be and warn him what will become of Russia in the next century if he does not take the Socialist threat more seriously.

However, I do not see becoming an interchangeable entity as being desirable (if we are equal, then we are also each more readily disposable). Equality is a false god; I will continue to embrace our unequal nature.

Sleep. One could spend 1/3 of their life (assuming 8 hours sleep) doing something productive or doing something for the sake of leisure (depending on one's preference) if there appeared an invention that made it possible to stay awake permanently. If that day ever comes, it would be glorious.