I’m Back!

Hopefully for good this time. I’m on a four day a week, ten hour a day work schedule, so I should have time to do extracurricular activities like writing (I wish it weren’t a luxury but facts be facts, ma’am) and posting here. It won’t be a lot. Even today I didn’t get done with house stuff until about half an hour ago.

I even batted out a few chords the other day to the tune of AN ALTOGETHER UNSERIOUS BREAKFAST. Only a fragment and I keep those all in a giant mega-file like a guitarist would keep riffs. Keep rolling those fragments and things slowly come together after awhile. I would have wrote more of it at the time, but I was already three hours late for bed and I don’t have a slacker job. Here is the fragment (I have no fear this will be stolen!).

What a strange, strange world I live in. Not your world, no. Your world is as normal as normal gets. Which is to say it is completely Continue reading “I’m Back!”



I still haven’t seen the latest Star Wars film, The Last Jedi. From everything that I have read, I am bound to hate this one more than Mary Sue Awakens. I really started to think about why and then I ran across a conversation on Mr. Wright’s site where people were discussing Sarah Connor from Terminator and Ripley from Alien/Aliens.

Someone came close to differentiating between KTB’s (killer tough babe) and Rey from Star Wars.

The thing that Ripley and Sarah Conner have in common as KTBs, and that most miss, is their motivation.
Ripley and Sarah are mother bears protecting their cubs, and nothing is going to stop them.

While this has some truth in it, it doesn’t go far enough. What is essential is the storytelling. What is crucial is the thing that makes it a principle of character development for both male and female characters.

I call it The Crucible. This idea is not new to me. I am applying a well known concept that is as old as story telling itself. But it is the element that is missing from the character and character development of Rey from the new Star Wars franchise.

What is missing from the new Star Wars series is basic storytelling.

Here is the comment I left at Mr. Wright’s site. I could elaborate, but this should be common knowledge. Note the two KTB’s are both from Cameron. Abrams doesn’t understand character development in general nor female in particular.

I was thinking about the part discussion going on about KTB’s (killer tough babe) here (although it seems to be a dead thread now). The thing that is missing, the thing that distinguishes a Sarah Conner and a Ripley from a Rey is a crucible.

The quintessential example (for me) is Sarah Connor. In the beginning Connor is just young waitress living the mostly carefree life of a single woman who goes out with friends. And if it were not for the intervention of Reese, the first Terminator would have been a short 2 minute clip of a woman getting her head blown off by a time traveling cyborg – The End, please exit theater. She’d have struggled to defend herself from a drunken Seth Green let alone a heavy metal alloy Arnold.

James Cameron knows how to tell a story (most of the time) through character. By the time we get near the end of the first movie when she is screaming to Reese after he sustains a debilitating injury “on your feet, soldier!” Sarah Conner the KTB is almost forged. When we meet her in the second film, lean and mean and menacing, and overpowering other human men, we buy it. We saw her transformed, we were given the evidence (it also helped that Cameron was smart enough to show her working out vigorously in the beginning of the second film).

Sarah Connor had a killer cyborg come back in time to kill her and she lived to tell about it – don’t F*** with Sarah Connor.

The same goes for Ripley in Alien/Aliens.

But the real point is that it applies to men as well as to women. The fault in the Rey character is not that she is a woman. The fault is terrible storytelling. Luke gets his clock cleaned in his first bout with Darth Vader even though he had at least some training with a Jedi Master. Mary-Sue-Rey takes on and bests proto-Sith Ren having just touched a lightsaber for the first time. Luke’s defeat at the hands of Vader is the crucible that forges him into the Jedi (almost) that he appears as in The Return of the Jedi.

In the first Star Wars we learn early on the Luke has piloting experience and thus we buy his being able to pilot an X-Wing, and we are able to buy his destroying the Death Star because he had Obi-Wan as force mentor in the cockpit. Rey “just knows” how to handle the Falcon, she “just knows” stuff about fixing it somehow. She goes through nothing, faces no crucible, is forged in no fire, suffers nothing for her powers.

I don’t think the character follows from the dictates of feminist ideology so much as it follows the pipe dreams of a slacker generation that doesn’t know anything about what character takes, just as they know nothing about man. It is the “safe-space” view of human development. That if you give someone a pillow, fast food, endless pep-talks on how good they are, this is what leads to success.

Abrams had an inkling (perhaps subconscious) that this wouldn’t totally fly which is why Rey lived alone and orphaned and traded imperial scraps for food. But that coin is not enough to buy the power needed that she displayed. Just as Sarah Conner growing up in foster care wouldn’t have been enough.

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!

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.


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.

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.

Gays Win the Weimar Lottery

Imagine there is a lottery in Germany, much like our modern one back in the 1920’s/ Imagine a one Wolfdietrich von Stumm of Weimar Germany in November of 1923. After a rout of drinking and harassing some Jews, he stops by his local store to check his lottery tickets.

“Heilige Scheiße!” (Holy Shit!) this intoxicated antisemite exclaims, he has just matched all numbers from last week’s lottery.

Then he reads that what would have been his millions of Marks last week that would have bought a week’s worth of meals will now not even be enough for a downpayment on a loaf of bread. He had wondered where his wife had found the Mark-wallpaper design!

“Fick die Henne!” (Fuck the Chicken) He spits throwing the newspaper to the ground and going back to the bar.

That, in a nutshell is what gays in America got today in the Supreme Court ruling that made same sex marriages legal in all 50 states.

What used to be considered a sacrament (if only sometimes as an ideal) is now not even afforded the status of a gentlemanly handshake. Not even the force of a business contract. A large segment of the current generation skips it entirely seeing the hollow folly their predecessors made of the institution.

People can divorce for any reason whatsoever – children be damned – under the slightest whim or the faintest of pressures. Because he has found a tighter ass or bigger tits, or she a bigger dick or larger wallet, or the initial lust has worn away – whatever. And they are free to repeat this process as many times as they feel the need to.

In today’s culture of ME, marriage didn’t stand a chance. Now I never had children, but I didn’t need to to learn the first lesson of marriage, it is not about ME. And this goes roundly and doubly if you have children then it is absolutely NOT ABOUT YOU.

So diluted and meaningless is the modern institution of secular marriage we have the spectacle of the “open marriage” which is really not a marriage no matter if the modern episte allows for the exclusion of the essential in one’s definition.

People walk around having children in marriage, without the marriage at the same time, having 4 children by four different fathers (never forget I point the finger at the fathers as well).

I get astonishment when I tell people I’ve been married for 22 years. It is like I’ve achieved some sort of rare, almost unheard of feat. That used to be the norm.

So no one be shocked that marriage is now “redefined” because it has been undefined for some years now.

What did they get? It’s a pity, they didn’t get much. Some vague contract thingy that will help you in court when you divorce (maybe) get you health insurance through your partner. They’re getting something most people I know aren’t searching for and don’t care about.

It is not an achievement. They did not gain anything. What they gained was a rubble. If they had gained it 50, even 40 years ago, that may have been something (scratch the 40, that would have been 1975, too late!). They would have really achieved something if it was still viewed as sacrament.

But I’ll leave it for the reader to see why that would be impossible. Hint: the answer lies not in intolerance or even religious views, the answer lies in psychology and I left the hint in this very post. Happy hunting.

Anyway… Hurray! Good for you!