Hugh Hefner

Hugh Hefner died the other day. Sorry to say I cannot “celebrate” the life of this man. Not to speak ill of the dead but his legacy is not one to cause me to celebrate. As a married man (for almost 25 years) dedicated to his wife, what he stood for was anathema. The so-called sexual revolution was a travesty, not a triumph.

On reading some of the commentary from the news I garnered two things. The worst time in history was the 1950’s. And women didn’t dress sexy before Hugh came along. Apparently there are two realities. The actual one and the narrative to keep people from seeing that we haven’t gone up, but have sunk low.

But two things stuck out for me in reading about him. He claimed at one time to have bedded over a thousand women (gross) and this quote:

I never really found my soulmate.

Those two claims tell a very sad story. I wonder if he ever related the two together. The first made the second an impossibility. How do you expect to find a soulmate when the depth of your relations is porking as many women as you could? How do you expect to find a soulmate when you view women as an object for the gratification of your lusts?

We see this sad scenario played out all around us if we look honestly.

Another piece was his decision a few years ago to stop showing nudes in his magazine (since reversed I read). his reasoning was since people now had access to every imaginable (and unimaginable) “sex” act at their fingertips now, showing nudes was simply passé’. Well, he started that ball rolling. The concept of Original Sin (and you do not have to be religious to believe in the basic truth of the concept) would have told you this was the end game which he helped bring about.

Read any testimonial from a former porn addict and they will tell you once you start down that road, unchecked, you will require more and more and harder and harder, the more outlandish. Start with nudes, then a spread beaver shot, then some R-rated simulation, the full, gynecological penetration, then some threesome material, then double penetration, triple, then you can’t get off as a lady is getting ravaged by a gang of twenty men in rape simulation.

Or as Randy said on South Park in their Grape of Wrath parody when the internet ran out and they had to go to California way:

Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other’s mouths you can’t exactly go back to Playboy!


Because Your Colleges are Rotted Through, Brother

Spenser Rapone should not only be immediately kicked out of West Point and investigated, but should be barred from military service. I would also look into legal action.

You see, communism is NOT dead. It is alive and very, very well in our colleges and universities. Feminism, gender identity, micro-agression “theory” these are all forms of Marxism. And then you have the plain old Marxism itself which is coming out from under cover. You have the Marxist history book written Howard Zinn, that, I have read, is the history book in college.

The revolution never ended in the universities. This is where our sickness comes from.

This is where the journalists are trained that work night and day – not to provide you with facts so you can make informed decisions, but to warp whatever the actual news was to fit you into their ends. I took a journalism class once, they start in on this strategy on day one. They view themselves as instruments to shape minds for social agendas (they call it social justice – even poop is simply shit).

This is where whacked out man-hating beasts called radical feminists get their theories and teach their theories – feminists are merely Marxists with Men as the capitalists and women as the oppressed working poor. Just like anyone not white is oppressed by the white man, white man is the capitalist everyone else is the oppressed workers (except for Asians).

Even the mechanics, the multi-logics, theory is in place virtually unchanged from the standard Marxist line – which the repeated use of a single logical fallacy ad hominem. “Mansplaining” is a purely Marxist term. Micro-agreesion is a Marxist term. A straight white male contesting any of his supposed oppressions or aggressions is simply blinded by his innate cis-white male social structure. Simply by existing he commits aggression and oppression.

The only thing that is accepted is for the cis-white male to cut off his junk and grovel before all Marxist demands, kissing every single butthole that puckers before his face. If you need instruction on how to perform this action visit the blog of science fiction author John Scalzi. Although he went to college so he may simply be doing it from indoctrination.

On the question of multi-logics. If it is asked one person has to think and argue from his social structure and another theirs, what makes one of them right and the other wrong?

Dear Brother, you have to ask that question? When the so-called proletariate reach power there is only one answer and it is the same answer they gave when they started from day one. The fist, the bomb, the club, the firing squad, slave camps (eh hem, sorry “work” camps) gulags, starvation, torture.

When reason is shoved off the field altogether this is the only result. Communism’s essential epistemological principle IS the removal of reason from the public square – to be replaced by terror.

So when you see a West Point cadet show open support for communism, you should feel a blood-chilling horripilation go down your spine and over your skin.

Maybe it is an isolated incident. I would bet not, the evidence, looking across all that is going on right now, points to this possibly already being widespread if not systemic.

Your question, brother, should be.


The National Anthem

[As a skinny kid growing up who got pushed around by jocks, I am not 100% certain that my opinions below aren’t a little informed by those experiences. However, I am 100% certain my feelings are completely influenced by those experiences!]

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way. If some NFL (or some other sport) player wants to protest the national anthem because of “inequality” or whatever, he is perfectly free to do so. And, being a hired employee, his bosses are entirely free to not keep him in their employ. Just as my boss is free to not keep me in his employ if I continue to mouth off opinions I am not paid to mouth off on his dollar.

And I, or any other fan, am free to cheer on the disgruntled football player or to turn off the television and do something constructive for once.

That is the obvious. And, yes, it is obvious.

But let’s ask a different question.

Why is the national anthem played before sports games in the first place? They don’t play it before a movie. They don’t play it before a concert. They don’t play it before a play.

Think about it. These are a bunch of overgrown boys who are ridiculously, absurdly, overpaid chasing each other on the (artificial or natural) grass, forming a man-pile, slap each other on the ass, and act obnoxious.

Or baseball – spit, hit ball, spit, run in diamond shape, spit, slap asses, spit, drink, spit, abuse women.

Or hockey, crudely figure skate while trying to beat the snot out of each other.

Why was the national anthem ever played before such a ridiculous spectacle? It does not warrant the national anthem. It would make more sense to have the Atlanta Falcons play Georgia on My Mind when the Dallas Cowboys come to town, and Texas My Texas when the Falcons go there. Even then the spectacle doesn’t warrant it.

They are men in tights!

When did we start listening to a bunch of concussion victims some of whom read at the fifth grade level? It is like listening to an actor – in fact, it is the same thing.

“Yeah, you know me I played Sally the demented teenage sister on the show Girls without Tampons, and I want to talk to you about the issue of-”

“Shut up, act.”

“Hey, this is Fritz Hairyballs the really tight-end of San Fransisco Grinders and I have something to say about-”

“Shut up, chase the ball, tackle that other guy in tight pants.”

“Hey kids, it’s Eddie Nutter of Earl Cram and we are taking a political stand for the-”

“Just shut up.”

Not to say that one of these highly unqualified people can’t say a truth merely because of the line of work they are in – that would be a form of ad hominem for me to claim thusly. But they attain no special status merely because millions of people consume their products and we recognize who they are.

As for I. I thought they were insulting the national anthem playing it at sporting events anyway. Take it away from them. And fire them. Fuck ’em.

Then again, they aren’t losing a customer in me anyway.

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.

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.


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.