I am not Alt-Right

I have to admit a lot of these terms have snuck up on me in the last year. Alt-Right is one of those terms. But, over the last couple of months I have been exposed to a number of alt-righters (I’m not capping the name, not worth my time) via discussions.

From what I have been exposed to I can safely say I am not alt-right. They claim an honesty about race relations, race consciousness, etc, etc, etc. Basically it is just a lot obfuscation for plain old racism.

One such lad kept bringing up SAT and IQ tests that show that blacks and hispanics score, on average, lower than whites (the fact that asians score higher than whites was a fact that I had to bring up and when I did I was accused of obfuscation myself – and that the differences were “small” – so what? you still ain’t on top, brother!).

Now these things are a matter of public record, and yes, the bare naked numbers are true.

But, they are merely data. What does the data mean? Now, It took me a lot of drilling to get anything out of anyone (I felt like Hank Reardon in Atlas Shrugged when he is being forced to sell at a complete loss and he keeps asking Dr. Ferris “what are you counting on?”). Now, the insistence on this raw data and repeated refusals to say what you mean by bringing them up in the first place tells me all I need to know.

You want the data to mean that there is a hierarchy of superiority when it comes to intelligence and the ability to perform scholastically. The hierarchy goes: asian, white, hispanic, black. I am sure the alt-righter would add that this merely applies to intelligence as it relates to problem-solving and scholastic achievement. And that the black is still better at basketball and eating lots of watermelon, while the Mexican is good at washing his car and making a lot of babies. No one cares about the asian, they are not making any noise, they are just studying in school.

When I mention the fact that there are many factors that can explain these differences (because I do not buy into the genetic inferiority of any race) I got a flood of accusations of offering Leftist style excuses – which I did not.

For instance. I do not think the tests are “culturally biased” that is a pant load. They are no more culturally biased than is 2 + 2 = 4. Although I have read university professors claim just that about math and reading. Just as the accusation that we live in a white supremacist structure is merely code for we live in a civilization where you are expected to show up to work, on time, and do your job. But even this I have heard denounced as inherently white supremacist structure.

But, if I say that there are many reasons for the differences in these tests, reasons that we can all see, I will get the hysterical “LEFTIST!” accusation. Nor am I saying “It is Whitey’s fault.” It is partly the Leftist Whitey’s fault to be sure, but there are cultural (within asian cultures themselves for instance) reasons as well why asians perform better than whites, just as there are cultural differences why whites perform better than blacks and hispanic – on average.

But the differences are not explained by genetics. But when your ONE ANSWER is race, this has to be your answer.

Another couldn’t keep antisemitic remarks under his belt. And this same person apparently thinks interracial marriages are degenerate (literally) and an abomination (just like homosex!) and a Leftist conspiracy to destroy the family. As usual this “abomination” is lumped in with some good contenders because the Left is not really a family friendly people. If someone wants to argue that contraception is injurious to the family structure, I’m all ears and I have heard the arguments and they are strong. But to say that interracial marriages are degenerate is to be a simple racist pig.

How about two people, a man, and a woman… fell in love? Wow, it is like I discovered the atom! Woo Hoo!

This same person went on to say that it was wisdom that kept the races from intermarrying before (I assume here he means black and white in America – I mean surely he wouldn’t object when American officers brought home Japanese wives, or Korean wives? Asians score higher than whites, so maybe it is an abomination for the asian woman to stoop to a monkey white man?). Sorry, no it wasn’t. Cultural differences? Sure. I bet it was quite hard – ON BOTH SIDES (see the blindness of the racist?) – for the bonding of different American sub-cultures. But hell, a beautiful farm girl in New York from Kansas would be in a foreign culture when she fell for Sonny Luciano from the Bronx.

But anything else is pure, naked racism. It is not a degeneration, nor an abomination, for a white man to fall for a black woman, for them to marry, for them to have sex, for them to bear children. Any more than it was for Gi Joe and Aiko from Tokyo.

For me to even be talking about this, as if it is 1947 or something is ridiculous. But there I am out there hearing this shit.

Granted, I think BLM is exactly the same as alt-right. Racist vs. Racist. Good luck people.

I am not Alt-Right. Nor will I be.

My positions are that that can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In this instance paragraphs 1691 – 1960.

Finally, I find the topic of race to be boring, boring, boring. I don’t go around talking about shirt color differences, and for the same reason I do not go around talking about skin color differences. I don’t care!
But I had to mention it this once because I am conservative, I am a registered Republican, but I am not alt-right.

To finish, here is a very wise man on YouTube. I agree with his sentiments completely. I am sure someone will say that is only because and blah, blah, blah. Don’t care.

Advertisements

Addendum to Prior Post and more IT

Despite my prior post denigrating much of the 20th century literature, I must say that there is much that I did like. This didn’t really occur to me until further into the day after my doses of caffeine started to kick in. But most of what I did like was the second half of the twentieth century, the first half I still regard as pretty sad.

As a lifelong bibliophile who goes through books like Michael Moore goes through buckets of KFC, I simply forget a lot of what I have read. Because even more than the stories themselves, with exceptions, I enjoy reading as an activity.

I dislike intensely the icons of the early and mid twentieth century. Hemingway bores me to tears, as does Steinbeck and Lewis – Sinclair, not C.S. Even Ayn Rand (who I was an ardent fan of for years) is of this strict realism school. Her saving grace from the world of boredom was her attempt to produce the ideal man – indeed The Ideal.

So I did like Rand, and I still think that The Fountainhead was an excellently written book even if full of some heinous ideas (and some good ones). So there is her. And I like Flannery O’Connor. I remember liking Aldous Huxley’s After Many a Summer quite a lot. That book, however, was not full of your run o’ the mill characters, nor was the plot. There was some Australian author who I liked also from the mid 20th century whose name escapes me at the moment. I liked Margret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind. I am sure there are others I am failing to drudge up.

But there was little that compared to 19th century literature. Much like painting and art in general, it just wasn’t as good. No one compared to Hugo and Dostoyevsky, nor Dickens or Austen. It is like van Gogh to Caravaggio – I mean, come on.

For the most part. But I am of the opinion that the twentieth century belonged to the genres. That is where the imagination, the speculation, went to live. And I got more reflection out of Frederik Pohl’s The World at the End of Time than in most anything else of the twentieth century literature I read.

That said.

I will sometimes scan reviews of books I am about to read or am in the middle of reading for curiosity at times. And I did that with Stephen King’s IT. Five star reviews I never read, what one loves another can hate. I always go for the one star reviews.

Among the complaints is that it is too long and that King goes into too much detail. It is a 1200 or so page book and at page 133, he is not yet done introducing the cast of characters. Not that there are an overwhelming number of them, nor is the character sketches entirely deep, but King likes to put a lot of concrete detail about one’s youth, family, childhood traumas, and what is in one’s medicine cabinet (not the most telling detail, but it can tell something, no?). It took about twenty pages to get done introducing one character only to have him slit his wrists in the tub upon receiving the phone call. Bye bye.

Now despite this it is Stephen King, people. He is my guilty pleasure read because I like horror and you can slam through one of his books (no matter the size) pretty quickly. After reading some esoteric chapter on ancient Jewish conceptions of the afterlife, or trying to figure out some Lafferty story I just read, King is a relaxation. And he has a way of connecting with a reader that almost never fails. They are usually through common human bonds that only a misanthrope would fail to register. I mean his book Christine (and for that matter, The Tommyknockers) is about friendship not really about some demonically possessed car.

But I cannot believe some people simper that the book is too long and King doesn’t “get to the point.” These kids (and I suppose they must be of the iPhone generation) would never be able to read, for instance, the unabridged Les Miserables. I think, if memory serves, there is even a thirty-some page description on glass manufacturing in it that has no bearing on the story itself. I think there were quite a few asides in there like that that I skipped over after awhile. Or the two and a half page paragraph, or seventeen pages of description (talking of books in general back then) with absolutely no dialogue.

They couldn’t do it. Could they keep reading long enough for Raskolnikov to commit his heinous crime? Or how about all that book that comes after? How boring! Oh shit, How about The Idiot? What the hell is that about when you are on page fifty? Anybody?

Tolstoy’s War and Peace? They would glaze over by page six, “Oh dear God! Will a Transformer please show up or something! I’m so bored right now!”

If Stephen King is too long and plodding for you, put down the book, go watch the movie. Leave the reading to the readers.


IT

Alright, damn it, I am reading IT. For some reason the book never interested me even though I am on a “forever” end-of-time book project (that, at my pace, will be done at the end of time) that has villainous clowns. I just didn’t feel like reading a giant tome about Chester-the-molester clown which I figured it was. Turns out there is an inter-dimensional aspect to the story which I can get behind.

That and I can’t answer the question: “you haven’t read IT? Really?” again. On top of that the question: “You haven’t watched the original IT with Tim Curry?” And soon to be added, “You haven’t watched the new movie version of IT?”

Most people can accept I haven’t read the book. But you haven’t seen the movie? As a general rule if a movie is based on a book, and there is a chance I will read the book in the future, I will not see the movie until the book is read. And even then perhaps not. The book is primary for one. And for two – it is much easier to wade through a movie whose book you have read than a book whose story you have seen.

Coming in at 1138 pages, I would definitely not read it after seeing the movie. It’s King not Dostoyevsky for Pete’s sake.

And these questions are usually asked of me by people that were 3 or 4 years old when King’s novel first came out. Look, I was reading King before your daddy got a randy idea one night, alright? But one can’t keep up with such a prolific writer unless one shuns a great deal of others. So, sometimes King just has to wait. This is the same reason for which, even though I acquired his collection over a year ago, I have only read a few of the item from the Lafferty collection thus far.

The best reader, the best experience of being a reader, is the nomadic reading experience. I do not believe in sticking to one genre anymore than I believe in sticking to no genre (the mainstream literature reader). And no writer should dominate to the exclusion of other writers in the readers occupation.

Now I cheat a bit as I really just can’t read modern or current literature. I like my 19th century literature just find, my two favorites being Dostoyevsky and Dickens. The first half of the twentieth century puts a bad taste in my mouth.

In fact, this just occured to me. The first half of the twentieth century literature is like that salty, sickly taste you get in your mouth that is the precursor to vomiting all over the place. The second half of the twentieth century is pretty much the equivalent of shitting and barfing constantly after barely making it to the bathroom.

In fact, I remember in 1993 I had my last bout of the flu. And thank God the bath tub is right next to the toilet in almost all apartments. Because while I was hitting the surface of the water with enough force to splash up and wet my butt cheeks, I was making gore on the white plastic of the shower bed. That is the equivalency there.

Except for some books they had you read in school, I really can’t name a book of “literature” from the second half of the twentieth century that I have read to finish. I’d prefer to read the adventures of Pippy Longstocking again (yeah, I read those as a child, you want some of this shit?!). Hell, maybe I will, I seem to recall they were quite fun. Ooo! and Encyclopedia Brown as well! Well, I graduated to Chesterton’s Father Brown anyway.

The genres kept their head above water until recently, but literature, as they call it still, I cannot stomach. Genres are the literature now, I don’t know what the literature even is.

Boy, what a rant. Anyway. It has taken me thirty years to get to Stephen King’s IT.

And it starts off rather well. I was actually creeped out by the first scene.


Sexbots

Yes, sexbots.

Apparently these are already here with more robust “life-like” features and physical abilities on the way.

First reactions?

Ah, no. This is not an advance. My first reaction is to call this a fall into perversity. I mean further perversity.

Talk about the objectification of women. I mean, if this isn’t it, then the term never referred to anything.

I have heard that these are an answer for loneliness. Apparently the dog has failed as has man’s right hand. No longer able to be satisfied watching 10 men pounding the living hell out some tiny slut through a computer screen, he will now be able to invite all of his fellow jack-offs over for a real romp.

The only reason Lenore from Joss Whedon’s Serenity (see photo at top of post) looked like a real life sexbot is because it was played by an actual human. The one’s they have now look dead. There is something missing. A soul. It gives me the creeps. This is like Jeffrey Dahmer’s psychology given manifestation.

What happens when men, now really unrestrained in satisfying hatever cruel lusts they can conjure, seek to experience this with a flesh woman. A being he is little used to and that does not tailor itself to his whims.

I came across this story in The Mirror where Dr. Kathleen Richardson says the following:

“Sex is a co-experience between two people but society has turned it into a product.

“Men have uncoupled sex from relationships so completely that they can now enter into these fantasies and have sex with dolls.

“They are not pedalled as products though, they are pedalled as girlfriends – and that is dangerous for women.

“When they penetrate that object they are not having a relationship, they are masturbating.

“When they are penetrating a woman and thinking she is an object, that is rape. We really need to address this confusion. The consequences for women are very dangerous.”

Running across the same story but this time from the National Catholic Register quotes from perhaps the most hated document of the twentieth-century Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Note, this was addressing artificial birth control 50 years ago. Add in the turn that feminism resulted in basically women calling for the same deal, and Pope Paul was pretty dead on.

CEO of Abyss Creations (man, what an apt name!) says the following:

“There’s a knee-jerk reaction to either laugh at it or ridicule it or just go, ‘Oh that’s gross,’” says Matt McMullen, CEO of Abyss Creations in San Marcos, Calif., the company behind RealDoll. “It’s not about replacing people. It’s more about creating an alternative for those that desire it” – Sex Robots Are Coming, and They’re Not as Skeevy as You Think – Jun.02.2017 https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/sex-robots-are-coming-they-re-not-skeevy-you-think-n767531?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_mc_170826 via NBC News

You mean the alternative of replacing people.


Sign Petition to have Antifa declared a Terrorist Organization

CLICK HERE. Because they are a terrorist organization.


A Book Recommendation

In the wake of the disastrous (and eye opening) Charlottesville weekend, I was reminded of a book I had read about 23 years ago.

What reminded me of it was clear presentation of the two extreme sides of our political spectrum now. Both are antithetical to America and her values (or what were her values – hard to tell the death of a thing if it has no actual flesh).

The growing “alt-right” which consists of recently angry people reacting to the militarized Left, the old school racist skinheads and Nazis, and other pants-shitting, white robes wearing shitheads that have been showing off the effects of inbreeding for over a century. I am sure there is a subset in there as well that are simply lost and will run screaming when they see what corner they have got off on.

The militant “alt-left” of antifa and BLM. These are just the racists and communists that make up the left, anti-white, anti-America, etc. Right now, with the full support of the media and academia, the Democratic party, and even some knuckle-headed (see McCain and Romney) Republicans, the entertainment industry – they are in the ascendancy.

Except that they are feeding the alt-right.

I am not the first person to see eerie similarities to 20’s Germany here. The shitheads on the right and the shitheads on the left will squeeze out any centrists in the middle – and whoever can kill the other and rule will win.

And they both hate the Jews!

Your choice will be Fascism or Fascism – your country will already be dead.

Quick points, my IMHO, about last weekend.

– ACLU completely correct to argue for the right of the demonstrators.
– As soon as they showed up armed they should have been shut down and forcibly the night prior when they showed up.
– They have a right to peaceful process, but not to violence.
– Had they not been weaponized, we would have seen the New Left (which is really just the Old New Left from the 60’s but with full cultural support through 50’s years of further rot) for what it is as the beat upon a bunch of defenseless shitheads.

The book I recommend, with reservations, is Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels.

Now I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of Objectivism anymore, so I do not recommend (unless you are simply curious) his recommendation chapter which is basically a selling pitch for Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Although even there there are points to be had since the philosophy does agree with America’s founding ideas in general. It diverges in some areas where Objectivism claims that ideas like Duty, Public Good and Sacrifice are bad ideas. When it agrees with the Founding Fathers, the chapter is good – when it starts to chastise, he’s selling soap.

What he does do is go into detail the culture and ideas that were dominating in Weimar Germany and that led to the Nazi state. The examination of the extreme Kantianism that took place in German ethics is fascinating. The descriptions of the concentration camps victims walking to the deaths to the soft sounds of operetta are completely disturbing.

Peikoff’s examination of the purpose of the concentration camps is probably the most disturbing chapter. People assume the camps were there merely for the purpose of killing. That is not the case.

That, however, is after a long analysis of how the Germans got there.

When I first read the book in 1992(?) I can’t say I saw a lot of similarity between Weimar Germany and the modern America of 1992. And a lot of the American examples from the book are from the riotous 60’s. Now the foundations were laid in the 60’s for our disaster (you don’t need to be a current or ex-Objectivist to see or agree with that) but they looked a little far removed in 1992.

Well, that was a generation ago. They seem like very Ominous Parallels now – and very close.


Why I Ran From the Atheist Crowd

Really I’m just using this as an excuse to put something out there. And what I am posting is a response to someone on Mr. John C. Wright’s site that answered me 11 days after my comment. I thought my response good enough that I would hate to see it lost in the sands of a retired blog post. Although I had to hold back because I don’t think my interlocutor is well versed in philosophy, history, theology, science, technology, logic or common sense.

First her first parlay was in response to this post

…and she writes:

Did you ever wonder why so many new, innovative, especially high-tech things that you find helpful in your life are created by teams of people who predominantly hold views opposite to yours, and find your views generally distasteful? Go to Google campus, or Amazon, or Intel, pretty much any high-tech producer – do you think you’ll find there mostly conservative crowd? Does it make you give up computers, cell phones, internet? Perhaps the whole “conservative” thing has its downsides?

To which I responded:

Hold it. Are you saying that if you hold, for instance that marriage is between one man and one woman, or that Christ died on the cross for man’s sins, that that man will be too what? Stupid, slow, uncreative, non-innovative to work in high tech, to acheive or excel in such a field? Are you attempting to establish some sort of causal link here or are you blowing gas? And what about that exceptions? Are they the ones that manage to hide their drooling in front of the high-tech lefty hero boss-boy? Or are they, somehow, perhaps miraculously, still able to perform despite their retarded ideas?

I had honestly thought after posting this that I had actually made of error in interpreting what her meaning was. Surely, Bob, you can’t think she would mean something like that? Perhaps she is merely asking why he doesn’t quit these other marvels of modern technology since such sectors are comprised of, she says, leftist and liberals.

I leave aside the fact that just because Jeff Bezos comes out for dumb idea #42 doesn’t mean the entirety of Google is behind dumb idea #42, nor necessarily the majority.

And everyone knows, should know, that businesses and corporations are hardly the test for any sort of stand on any social issue. They follow the breeze. If a majority decided to start putting minority X into ovens for extermination, you would suddenly see a bunch of brand new manufacturers of ovens. Introducing the Google 50,000 BTU Bone-Roaster!

They are no better than politicians – and no different in this regard.

Anyway, turns out I was wrong. My interpretation of her comment was right all along. You religious, you Continue reading


It’s in the Lyrics, Man

Another rock musician of depressing, self-absorbed, snowflake melancholy lyrics has offed himself. Not to comment on the person because I don’t want to speak ill of the dead let alone one that flung a No at existence, or rejected God’s gift (interpret at your leisure). I was not a fan of their music and know nothing about them except what I have heard at work.

But I have to ask. Is this a surprise? I still remember how shocked and saddened people were when Kurt Cobain ate that shotgun. Really? Talk about a walking billboard of self destruction.

Now, if Katrina from Katrina and the Waves (I’m Walking on Sunshine – well – and don’t you feel good!) wraps a cord around her neck, then we can be surprised. A person can show in their product and general “public” persona upbeat happiness, even joy. To you. To the perceiver. And they can be one step from offing themselves at any moment.

But you don’t usually see the opposite. The person who shows utter despair and depression in product and persona but whistling Dixie and skipping down their sidewalk in private time.

Music in general and rock in particular has been in a depressing downward, angst driven spiral of suicidal death worship for about a generation now. And I think it started with grunge.

Of course depression starting in Seattle makes perfect sense if you have ever suffered their 9 to 10 month rain/drizzle/grey sky/drizzle/rain/grey/grey/rope around neck/rain season. It is enough to make Matthieu Ricard take a back flip off the Space Needle and create his own brain omelet on the sidewalk below.

Hey, I’m creating a little depression right here! Hoo Ha!

I don’t listen to any modern music especially youth music. For one I am no longer a youth and a lot of it simply doesn’t speak to me. Second I didn’t grow up at a time when youth thought like that. The depressing kids when I was growing up listened to REM or The Cure, but it was mostly a fad thing for them. A lot of them wore their despondency with the same shallowness that their mall bought goth accessories were attained.

Going further back generation-wise. My brother once called my mother on the telephone, my mother is 75, to talk about how depressed he was feeling. Her response – “Get over it.”

And that is about the crux of it right there.

But I like evidence so let’s take a look at a couple of representative lyrics here. The first is Numb by Linkin Park. This song is almost an archetype of the modern lyric. Note the focus (and the projection) on the expectations, perceived or real, of the other and the victim status of the focal person. This is pure victim music. It is almost a complete lack of self in these lyrics, the person’s existence is really just an extension of the oppressor’s domination which is achieved by the Victim’s supposed lack.

And it is depressing as shit. It is a song of failure. [In fact in looking over this band’s lyrics, I encountered the word failure at least a dozen times in different songs.]

I’m tired of being what you want me to be
Feeling so faithless, lost under the surface
I don’t know what you’re expecting of me
Put under the pressure of walking in your shoes
Caught in the undertow, just caught in the undertow
Every step that I take is another mistake to you
Caught in the undertow, just caught in the undertow

I’ve become so numb, I can’t feel you there
Become so tired, so much more aware
By becoming this all I want to do
Is be more like me and be less like you

Can’t you see that you’re smothering me?
Holding too tightly, afraid to lose control
‘Cause everything that you thought I would be
Has fallen apart right in front of you
Caught in the undertow, just caught in the undertow
Every step that I take is another mistake to you
Caught in the undertow, just caught in the undertow
And every second I waste is more than I can take!

I’ve become so numb, I can’t feel you there
Become so tired, so much more aware
By becoming this all I want to do
Is be more like me and be less like you

And I know I may end up failing too
But I know you were just like me with someone disappointed in you

I’ve become so numb, I can’t feel you there
Become so tired, so much more aware
By becoming this all I want to do
Is be more like me and be less like you

I’ve become so numb, I can’t feel you there
I’m tired of being what you want me to be
I’ve become so numb, I can’t feel you there
I’m tired of being what you want me to be

Now, let’s take a look at 1980’s Back in Black which not only ushered in a decade but is pretty representative for the decade that followed. Note the complete lack of victimhood here. In fact one would have to wonder if the person here possesses victims himself, so over the top is the bravado. There is no depression to be found here, this is spit out a nail and get to work. Yes, I have a preference – I choose anything to despair. This song is the winning throw in the Super Bowl, the grand slam at Fenway Park – it is a maniacal boastful resurrection and winning. [I would have put the lyrics to Walking on Sunshine to contrast but I was trying to keep the genres similar.]

Back in black
I hit the sack
I’ve been too long I’m glad to be back
Yes, I’m let loose
From the noose
That’s kept me hanging about
I’ve been looking at the sky
‘Cause it’s gettin’ me high
Forget the hearse ’cause I never die
I got nine lives
Cat’s eyes
Abusin’ every one of them and running wild

‘Cause I’m back
Yes, I’m back
Well, I’m back
Yes, I’m back
Well, I’m back, back
Well, I’m back in black
Yes, I’m back in black

Back in the back
Of a Cadillac
Number one with a bullet, I’m a power pack
Yes, I’m in a bang
With a gang
They’ve got to catch me if they want me to hang
‘Cause I’m back on the track
And I’m beatin’ the flack
Nobody’s gonna get me on another rap
So look at me now
I’m just makin’ my play
Don’t try to push your luck, just get out of my way


Graves, Balls and Crosses

Finished Lafferty’s The Elliptical Grave on Tuesday. The whole focus of the book seems to even come at you elliptically – and at the last minute. It wasn’t until the final two chapters that it all came together. Before that I slogged through it for three weeks.

Because I thought there was nothing behind the curtain. Oh, there was something behind the curtain alright. A bet. That was what was behind that curtain. A bet of ultimate consequences.

This is one of those Lafferty books that I find slightly annoying in that, although I will want to reread it anyway, I have to reread it because I am sure I missed 99% of the fruit’s juice. He can throw so much indirection and misdirection at you (to say nothing of the constant word play) it is like coming into a joke at the punchline. You thought you were in a joke or a jest but only opaquely – and then the drum snap and the crowd laughter. Hold on! Back to the beginning.

If Lafferty were instructed to write the plain fact that a cat is on a mat, he’d entertain us for 40 pages and we still wouldn’t have a simple fact, but a multiplicity… a multiplicity that may involve a cat (a feline of some sort at least) and some derivative form of dorsal support. But the cat would have died and resurrected, or simply continued to decompose, or assumed a chair at the Institute for Impure Science and the mat would be constructed by St. Joseph himself (bonus points to whomever can guess the Lafferty reference there).

But once I got the hook. What a story! His stories are like the Spanish Inquisition – no one expects it!

Now to the balls and the crosses.

I was talking to suspected android/writing machine author (or time traveller, or possessor of the 48 hour day) John C. Wright the other day (actually he was talking, me and a few others were listening) about religion in science fiction (talk about an untapped field) and he mentioned G.K. Chesterton’s The Ball and the Cross.

Few authors will get a pass to the front of the line. G.K. Chesterton is one of the few. I already own and am a HUGE fan of his books Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man, and I love his Father Brown stories. So when I heard mention this book about a duel (and one supposes debate) between a fledging secular atheist at the dawn of the 20th century and a Christian (I suppose a stand-in for Chesterton himself although I haven’t got that far yet) well, how can one resist that?

Think of it though. That was a new creature (pretty new, anyway) in 1905. Fresh and full of vigor, and full of utopian answers that were yet to kill millions upon millions of people. Although the French had the news.

Over a century before he and his brethren whittled down the edifice of Western Civilization enough where we can start to see the prayer mats our grandchildren will be kneeling – or bleeding – upon.

This should be a fascinating read.


California Typewriter

Usually I loathe documentaries and only watch a couple in any given year. Mainly I don’t like material presented to me in such a manipulative format. I like it to be as close to data as I can get it and form my own opinion.

Or put it this way: If you are watching a Michael Moore film and you think you are getting facts, you live in fairytale land.

But this one is right up my alley. It is about typewriters! And how awesome they are. Although I had to abandon the idea of exclusively writing on one. I like to sit at it when I have a moment and have a continuing narrative going on with it.

The trailer was pretty interesting. It’s nice to know I’m not the only typephile out there. Tom Hanks says he has over 250 typewriters. Way to go, buddy, I feel your love!