Millenial Libertarians Are Completely Insufferable


One of my musical heroes, John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten), lead singer of the Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd., has said on numerous occasions, when pressed about his political views, that he doesn’t lean right, left or center; he’s above all of it, not willing to dedicate himself to one political party or viewpoint.  He voted for Obama twice.  It’s a big monkey off your back when you grow up and realize that some of your favorite musicians are full of shit.  But, aside from making the general point that you shouldn’t ascribe to your artistic heroes’ political views, the bigger and more important point I want to make is that you should be EXTREMELY cautious of any person who claims that he or she doesn’t go by the “left/right paradigm.”

There is no politics outside of the “left/right paradigm” and, if you think there is, you’re fooling yourself.  The whole struggle for a better world is contingent upon how much freedom you’re willing to sacrifice for how much safety.  You can believe in 100% freedom and zero safety, resulting in a Mad Max, Social Darwinist world.  You can believe in zero freedom and 100% safety, resulting in an Orwellian style world where you live for the the state.  That’s it; you can use all of the mental gymnastics you want to try to get out of the “left/right paradigm”, but you’ll only be talking in circles and coming back right to where you began.

Take, for instance, the least controversial topic I can think of; driving safety.  Unless you’re a sociopath, you probably believe that driving rules exist because how you drive effects everyone else.  Therefore, most agree that strict, draconian measures should be taken against drunk drivers and that certain infractions should be policed and penalized.  Therefore, if driving safety was a parallel for society, you would say that views towards driving safety are very left wing and heavily policed.

Unfortunately, millennial Libertarians don’t think in those terms.  Like John Lydon, they see themselves as rebels and mavericks, combining a mish-mash of views into a weird stew that indicates a complete lack of political understanding or reading of the facts.

This is the world as I see it; the lunatics currently run the asylum.  We’re heading out of control into an abyss that threatens to irreversibly turn the country leftward to the point where, in a few short years, the United States will begin to resemble Europe.  Taxes will be incredibly high, affirmative action will make sure unqualified people get into higher echelons of business, speech codes will be enforced, the country will be balkanized into little nation states of non-English speaking foreigners with curiously different cultures that highly contradict our own and the government will regulate EVERYTHING.

However, we are also at a point where we can SAVE the U.S. from such a fate.  In fact, we’re one or two terrorist acts away from convincing the public that their only safe bet is to elect a Republican, someone who actually CARES about national security, will close off the border from illegal immigrants while shipping many of them back and will not under any circumstances allow 10,000 Syrian “refugees” into the country because they know that they cannot be vetted properly.  Not to mention will multiply and create dangerous all Muslim no-go zones like they have in Europe.

There’s only one problem; Gary Johnson.

I’m already furious with pussy-ass cuckservative wannabes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for not dropping out of the Presidential race.  I think a Trump/Cruz ticket would be the best thing for the country right now and this asshole Gary Johnson decides to run as a third party candidate.  That wouldn’t matter to me anyway because I don’t think the angry, white, middle aged demographic, the demographic the Republicans should have been aiming for in the first place, really gives a hoot who this Gary Johnson fellow is, but I do have a problem with how he callously ignores the big picture.

For instance, the highly overrated Libertarian personality Julie Borrowski said in one of her Facebook updates that she didn’t vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he didn’t “earn it.”  How didn’t he “earn it”?  Isn’t not being Barack Obama enough to “earn it”?  How will a GOP candidate “earn it” this time?  I was so beside myself with annoyance that I tweeted something like “How do we get horny Libertarians to not listen to @JulieBorrowski when she tells them to not vote GOP because they didn’t “earn” it.”  Borrowski didn’t challenge that her horny, blind followers will do what she says; instead she asked, “When will the GOP listen?”

That’s why Libertarians annoy the living crap out of me.  Listen to what, exactly, Julie?  Borrowski has some sound views; she’s against radical feminists (what sane person isn’t these days?), pro gun rights, for low taxes and against corporatism, but some of her comments leave one to pause.  She said one time that some of the things Republicans say about immigrants are disgusting (like what? they should be legal?), another time she complained about conservative women using their sex appeal to sell their views – if you’re an attractive woman, your sex appeal will always sell your views – and another time talks about Syrian “refugees” as if it’s a problem only with the so called “extremists”, rather than seeing the entire thing as a problem unto itself.

And her viewers… my god… some of them ARE feminists, some believe in open borders, some complain that the GOP is too concerned with social issues as if anyone in the GOP has ANY power to make gay marriage illegal or reverse Roe vs. Wade, some feel “institutional racism” is a big problem and that cops unfairly harass black people, some feel that the most pressing issuetoday is abortion “rights” or legalizing marijuana (as if only the dumbest people don’t get caught doing it), some feel we should legalize ALL drugs, some are hardcore Chomsky supporters who feel that government should be out of everything EXCEPT healthcare and environmental issues.  Even Borrowski posted this article about how blacks are using guns to fight back against “police brutality”, as if they didn’t already do that on the streets of Chicago or Detroit (albeit with less than legal firearms).


My view of these people is this; they’re essentially weirdos, freaks, geeks, subculture folk that aren’t content with rebelling against the mainstream crapola of shitty pop music and romantic comedies and also feel the juvenile need to find a political identity outside of the mainstream.  They don’t want to be labeled as left wing or politically correct, they claim they “hate” the government, so they call themselves “Libertarians.”  These clowns claim they love Ron Paul, but hate Pat Buchanan.  They like Paul because he’s against corporatism, but then support Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders because they TOO are against corporatism in spite being socialists.  They support open borders because they feel everyone should be able to experience low taxes and the American dream.  In fact, they feel borders are a form of government oppression.

And arguing with them is impossible.

That is why, henceforth, if someone asks what my label is politically, I’ll call myself conservative – no caveats like “but I’m socially liberal”, no “but I have gay and female friends”, no “but I support drug and marijuana rights and hate the war on drugs”, none of that pandering, cuckservative nonsense.  It’s a given that I treat everyone with respect and as an individual and I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.  If that doesn’t equate to Libertarian views, then a conservative I shall be.

What If Conservatives Argued Like Liberals?

Bizarro-superfriends1Thanks to our leftist media and culture, the zeitgeist is that you’re either liberal/leftist or you’re a retrograde freak who hates minorities, gays and women.  So, it got me thinking what it would be like if we lived in a bizarro world where conservative views are the norm and liberals are the underdogs who, in spite having completely rational and cogent views, are constantly subjected to name calling, brow beating and a biased, agenda pushing media.

In other words, if conservatives argued like liberals, it would look something like this:

If you support gun control, you’re racist.

Blacks make up 13% of the population, yet are responsible for 75% of the crime, much of it towards their own people.  But you know what’s an even bigger cause for concern?  The cops that try to police that crime.  If Michael Brown is any indication, blacks aren’t armed enough.  Can you imagine the victory cry if Brown was the one who came out alive on that fateful evening?  Sure, the guns owned by black and Latino gang members are for the most part unregistered, but, if just one more registered one had been sold to our folk hero, Michael Brown, we would have one less dead black man and one more dead, power abusing cop.  Thanks a lot racist gun control!

If you believe in wealth redistribution and, as a result, want to vote for Bernie Sanders, you’re racist.

So, you hate the 1%, huh?  People that make a lot of money get under your craw?  You do realize that a lot of that 1% are Jewish, and that Asians dominate high paying Silicon valley tech jobs, right?  Okay fine, you anti-semite and hater of Asians!  You clearly feel that Jews own too much and have too much power and that Asians have IQs that are way too high and it’s therefore unfair that they get high paying computer programming and engineering jobs.  OH, and what about highly successful black people, such as Dr. Dre who is worth more than $500,000,000?  You must hate it when black people succeed and escape their ghetto upbringing and therefore prefer to punish them for it by taxing them.  You feel they owe you so much, you racist prick.

If you don’t believe in God, you’re racist. 

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all came from the Middle East, while Sikhism and Buddhism came from East Asia.  If you’re an atheist, you’re rejecting and, in many cases, judging the cultures and beliefs of people who are from these areas.  Also, Jesus was a Jew, so there is one Jew who you hold in contempt.  In addition to that, many blacks hold strong religious convictions, whether it be Christian  or Muslim (sometimes even Jewish!), so you’re also rejecting the views of blacks within your own country!  Don’t you feel ashamed for being so racist?  Granted, if you’re a liberal atheist, you somehow having a hard-on and a crush on Islam in spite it being the least liberal religion and with the strongest group of adherents who would gladly kill you for being an infidel, but, that’s besides the point.  Consistency isn’t important and you’re trying to prove you’re NOT racist here.

If you’re a feminist, you’re racist.

You think women are oppressed, and you want to smash the patriarchy?  You want to fight back against the testosterone driven, violent nature of men?  Well then you clearly hate blacks, Hispanics and Arabs, for those are the three most masculine and patriarchal ethnic groups.  Whenever a woman complains that she’s being “catcalled”, is it usually by a polo-shirt wearing, blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian male that yells, “daaaamn, nice ass!”?  Well, granted, Gabe and I do tend to hoot and holler at the legs in the skirts at University of Michigan’s campus, but I’d wager we’re the exception.  Also, for the most part, Arab men (especially Muslims, but it doesn’t exclude Christian Arabs as well), tend to stick to normative gender rolls and reject progressive views; they make no bones about calling loose women “sluts.”  The same can pretty much be said about blacks and Hispanics, who also tend to not think very highly of homosexuals either.  So, ergo, if you are a feminist or a gay rights supporter, you are predominantly fighting against black, Hispanic and Arab cultures and are thus racist.

If you support the gay community, you’re racist.

Guess which group of people hate gays more than any other?  Think really hard! It’s the one that has no problem stringing them up on ropes or throwing them off of roofs.  I get it; you want gays to have the same rights as straight people, so you’re willing to walk into a bakery owned by a Christian family, claim “emotional” damages when they refuse to make your gay cake and then collect a hefty sum from them.  But, would you force a Muslim baker to do the same thing and put him out of business?  Because you know damn well the Muslim baker wouldn’t make your cake (though he would like to put you in his cake).  Well, if you’re willing to bankrupt a Christian business, are you ready to accept the mantel of “racist” when you do the same thing to a Muslim one?

If you support Planned Parenthood or abortion in general, you’re racist.

Actually, this one isn’t too far from the truth.  Quotes such as “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective” and “The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind” are directly attributable to Margaret Sanger.  Now, realistically, in theory I believe similar sentiments since we do need less stupid people.  But, a while ago, when a friend of mine wore a jokey t-shirt that reads “abortion is racist” is it really so much of a joke if it was started on the premise of limiting the propagation of black people or the “feebleminded” as Sanger put it?  I actually wonder if progressive liberals really do think of it as a good way to keep the black population down so they won’t be bothered by homeless people begging for change outside the abortion clinic.

If you support illegal immigration and don’t want to curtail chain immigration, you’re racist.

Seems strange, huh?  How can it be racist to NOT let illegal immigrants and relatives of legal and semi legal immigrants into the country.  Well, if you knew the peril they put themselves through at the hands of drug gangs, in addition to the hellish and poor life they’ll live in the States when some wealthy, corporate wage slave pays them under the table while they live in filthy, crime infested, all Spanish speaking barrios, you’d think twice about okaying their entry.  But, if putting these people through hell is what you want, then keep the gates wide open.

If you support the EPA and further attempts to curb carbon emissions, you’re racist.  

You do realize that China and India are two of the biggest polluters in the world, and that the United States has the cleanest air in the world, right?  Well, how would you like it if you had no choice but to emit green house gases in the air, while people walk around in masks and some so called “advanced” Western country rubbed their clean air and “high standard living” in your face?  Not to mention laughed at your choice of feline delicacy.  You’re clearly trying to say, “ha, ha, you dirty Chinks, we’re better than you!”  And now you want to regulate carbon emissions EVEN MORE?!  Way to rub it in their faces, assholes!  Actually, while I began this post as a satire of how the left calls everything racist, I can draw a reasonable conclusion that there is some “West is the best” attitude on the part of left considering they know damn well that underdeveloped nations will NEVER go through a proper industrial revolution without burning fossil fuels since the alternative is too costly.  Therefore, it actually IS a somewhat racist, or, at very least, a pro-West stance to force underdeveloped countries to comply with our emission standards.

If you think any of the above arguments are stupider than the ones put forth by the tards at or,  you also probably feel that pedophilia is a perfectly acceptable life choice and are therefore not racist against Muslims.

MINO – Millennial in Name Only: My Interview with Bernard Chapin


Well, I’m a lazy ass.  Initially I was planning on transcribing the entire interview I did with Bernard Chapin of the Chapin’s Inferno youtube channel, but I realized how stupidly long it takes to transcribe an interview that’s an hour long, especially one full of “ums”, “uhs”, “likes” and constant interruptions (that is my interrupting HIM, he’s a gentleman, I am not).

So, rather than do that, I’ll just post the youtube clip and give my takeaway.  Chapin is probably the most influential person on my political thought towards adopting a Social Libertarian, conservative, anti-PC, tell it like it is philosophy.  Chapin has rocked the Inferno since late 2007 and launched the Male Defender podcast in May of 2014.  On top of that, he’s written several books, including Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island: A School’s Progressive Decline.

Initially, when I asked Chapin to do the interview, I believe he was a little weary about who I was, not helped by the fact that he blocked me a couple years ago for being a drunk, annoying asshole.  But, eventually he agreed.  What he didn’t tell me was that he would use the interview for one of his videos, allowing my less than charismatic, unrehearsed, stuttering delivery to be heard all over the world and that he would frame the video as an interview with a millennial who was once a leftist and had a change of heart.

But, as my proclivities towards old weird shit, collecting records, pop cultural ephemera, my not owning a smart phone (though all signs point to it being time to upgrade), my wish to go back to the 1950s (albeit a 1950s with more blatant sex and violence) and my now more outward expression of my right of center politics, I think he chose the wrong “millennial” for his case study/interview (wait, I thought this was me interviewing YOU Bernard!).

So, instead, it felt more like a bar conversation (helped by downing a cheap bottle of wine all while this went on) between two buddies.  Without a doubt, Chapin is one of the most well-spoken people I’ve “interviewed” and was certainly as fun as any band I’ve talked to.  If politics were like this, then maybe my young, dumb, indoctrinated leftist friends wouldn’t be so averse to challenging their views?

Below the video are a few of my clarifications, stuff I remembered to ask afterwards and the links to the stuff that was name dropped in the video that could be of benefit to the viewers all broken down by the minute; so, if you decide to just look at the cliff notes, you can know where to jump to.  Think of it as a table of contents/bullet points.  The charming, articulate man with the quieter voice is Bernard Chapin, the stuttering mess who can’t stick to a topic for more than a minute is yours truly:

(start): “You are here at Chapin’s Inferno…” What?  We are?  Way to throw me to the dogs without telling me!  Although, it wasn’t recorded live, I still felt it was sink or swim; I think I did more doggy peddling.  To clarify, I didn’t have a “change of heart.”  I’m just less of a pussy about expressing my views.  Out the gate, we talk about feminism.

(4:37) Talk begins of being an outsider, a “hipster”, a weirdo and how it goes against what people would think is someone with conservative views.  The big differences is that Chapin is describing the typical Williamsberg/Portland/Seattle, bike riding, indie-rock listening type, and, I most certainly DO NOT fit into that category with my gory, exploitation films, old horror comics and Michael Moorcock novels.  Musical taste is a weird category as I’m probably one of the few people that would throw Can, Aerosmith, Devo and Mayhem into the same playlist.  But, more importantly, I got a chance to name drop Amphetamine Reptile records, Halo of Flies, Today Is the Day, Unsane and Helmet. I also discovered that King Buzzo from the Melvins is a right libertarian, who is a hardcore champion of writer Thomas Sowell.

(7:17) Talk of gender differences leads to recommendation of this video about the way women tend to vote and the unintended consequences on Western civilization.

(8:20) Talk of how Saturday Night Live is thinly veiled leftist propaganda.

(9:20) Talk of backgrounds, where we grew up, where we are now in life.  I found this segment kind of boring, but Chapin said it be of some benefit for some of the listeners. Topics of college debt, millennials moving back home and people with college degrees working lousy jobs.  Also, the phone rings and you can hear me pouring wine.

(13:56) We talk about the books that Matt Forney has written, including Confessions of an Online Hustler: How to Make Money and Be an Internet Superstar, Wriing for Peanuts: How to Make Easy Money on Fiverr and Big Lovin’: The Guide to Picking Up Fat Chicks (note, the last one is a spoof, but, for my money, I wouldn’t consider the girl on the cover “fat.”  She’s got huge tits, which I am a fan of.  Also, there are girls with the big, round booties and enormous knockers that have done wonders for my libido, so I’m to wonder what Forney’s definition of “fat” is.)  Also, there is a bit of confusion in that I mistook Confessions of an Online Hustler for his free, six page long, downloadable e-book he has at his website.

(15:56) We discuss Chapin’s books Women: Theory and Practice, Escape from Gangsta Island and Napalm Is the Son of Justice, which did not see publication.  This is where I fucked up; during the discussion; Chapin mentions how he is not the same person as he was when he wrote Women: Theory and Practice and how can’t get another book off the ground because every topic he writes about would be too offensive, but, instead of asking him to elaborate on any of  that, I get sidetracked and the conversation turns to Mark Levin.

Speaking of sidetracked: This is a great place to tell my brief story about when I slept with Melissa Wright on Halloween.  Yep, that happened, all you Detroit gossip-mongers.  We were lying in bed and she was looking at my pile of books and the pile included stuff like Philip K. Dick, Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard’s Conan and then things got strange… Jim Goad’s The Redneck Manifesto I could explain easier because she’s kinda white trash and doesn’t care for political correctness, but then, when I saw Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, with Levin’s round, middle aged, lawyer face staring out at you, I immediately got up, picked up the book and hid it in the closet as if I was hiding porn. I mean, Jim Goad is one thing, but Mark Levin ain’t rock ‘n’ roll!

(21:00) We talk about how leftists use feelings over facts when debating.  To clarify, the guy that blocked me was underground, internet, music critic sensation Mark Prindle, whose reviews are very funny and informative, but his politics are informed by the left – especially considering he said that Jello Biafra of all people exposed him to some political realities (makes jerk-off motion) – and he and I have had private conversations where he admitted to me how it’s hard for him to defend Islam on account of how it really isn’t a religion of peace, but one of sheer force and violence, but he’s a too left-centered and politically uninformed to leave his leftist views; that or he has to pander to his bearded, hipster followers.  Either way he got butthurt that I made fun of his fans after they attacked me first for presenting the unpopular idea that global warming/climate change might be as big of a hoax as the 70s Ice Age scare.

(23:44) I ask if Chapin has read Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, and he tells me how, though Shapiro has some good stuff, he doesn’t like his attack on literature, particularly James Joyce.  For the record, I’ve only read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and, while I enjoyed it just fine, I really have no desire to read Finnigan’s Wake or Ulysses because I have no desire to spend fifteen years trying to read between the lines, when I can read more Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft or Michael Moorcock.  Also, for the record, even though I like what he says, I think Ben Shapiro comes off like a big weenie who would rat on me to my mom for smokin’ dope.

(27:00) Discusses how anti-Semitism is silly because some of the best conservative writers are Jewish, among which he name drops David Horowitz and his book Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, the one book that made Chapin realize he is a man on the right.  Thanks, Chapin!  Just ordered the book for a penny plus shipping!

(28:09) Talks about going to Catholic University in the late 80s, where he gets his first dose of indoctrination as a professor attempts to teach the kids how white people brought “lying” to the Indians.  We continue talking about how universities are now a joke and state funding should be cut from any university that has gender and race studies courses.

(31:30) I ask what is the bigger threat: old school socialism/communism or Cultural Marxism.

(34:00) I ask where the line is, or if there’s even a line, between politically incorrect and what people on the mainstream typically deem as “racist.”  This is in regards to the Return of Kings and Alternative Right websites, Roosh V’s review of Kevin McDonald’s The Culture of Critique and something Matt Forney wrote that Chapin dismissed as clickbait.  I neglected to ask about the other stuff Forney has said because I figured, “eh, whatever.”  We also discuss blogs and podcasts such The Right Stuff and The Daily Shoah and race realists such as John Derbyshire and Jared Taylor; the latter whom I’m reading the anti-affirmative action tome Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America.  Eventually this leads to some interesting discussion of problems in the black community and whether class, leftist policies and modern liberal, “one parent” culture are bigger factors than race.  Conclusion: they are.

(41:57) Talk now begins of how people’s personalities both change and stay the same over time and how one can improve one’s self to get more out of life.  Inevitably this leads to more discussion of Roosh V and his pickup literature.  There’s also mention of Aaron Clarey’s book The Curse of the High IQ (I know I suffer from that!).  Oh and, spergs.

(43:39) I rudely interrupt Chapin to tell the story of how I to tried to attend the Return of Kings meetup that the media misrepresented as a pro-rape event.  If any of my Facebook friends read this, the reason I was hanging out in Ann Arbor on Saturday, February 6 was to attend the meetup.  On the RoK site, it told people who wanted to go, to show up at 8:00 P.M. and ask where pet store was; that was the secret code.  So, there I was walking around like a dope, asking random people where the pet store is located until 8:20 when a trio of dread lock wearing SJWs appears with poster boards protesting the event even though the guy who ran the meetup never showed up.  So, naturally, I wanted to suss them out and I asked them “what’s a Roosh V?  Is that some type of car?”  Then I told them how the real rape culture is from Islam and that we’re going to have a problem with that once we import 10,000 Syrian rapefugees in the U.S. just like Germany and Sweden are having a problem with their Muslim population and the mangina and his two lady friends told me I was “racially profiling” Muslims (in spite Islam being a religion, not a race) and how Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Then we agreed to disagree and cordially parted ways.

(45:00) My mentioning the Syrian rapefugees leads to discussion on immigration illegal or otherwise.  Conclusion: just cut it off for ten to twenty years.  I also discuss Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster.

(47:08) We discuss Donald Trump.  Conclusion: Ted Cruz might be the truer conservative, but Trump is the only one who can crush Clinton or Sanders.

(52:00) I ask about the Middle East, specifically about how people are divided on whether to support Israel or not, whether to support the Iran deal or not.  Chapin’s succinct answer is just to not play favorites and cut off all foreign aid, which I took as a polite way of saying, “I could give a fuck about Israel.”  And there’s no reason why he should since he’s not Jewish.  That would be cucky, wouldn’t it?  He, like every sane person does agree that we need to crush ISIS and doesn’t think it’s an invention of the CIA to further American (and of course “Zionist”) interests.  Also Mubarek, Muslim Brotherhood, Gadaffi and Obama’s campaign in Libya are touched upon.

(54:00) We discuss how leftism is a religion and possibly a mental illness.

(56:35) We get into how talented people have dumb opinions.  Chapin seems to think that George Clooney is a good actor; we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.  Then we discuss Coen Bros. films, specifically Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, both of which I thought sucked.  Chapin, on the other hand enjoyed Intolerable Cruelty and how it humorously portrayed the ugly realities of the marriage system.  I just think Cathera Zeta Jones, while very attractive (especially the closeup of her ass in Entrapment) is a lousy actress, especially for the type of screwball comedy that the Coen Bros. were going for.  The “guy with the cowboy hat” whose named escaped me at the time was Billy Bob Thorton.  Chapin discusses Maureen Dowd, who I’d never heard of, I had my mind on Catherine Zeta Jones, oof!

Say, now that we’re on the topic of the Coen Bros., here’s my brief rundown of their films.  Keep in mind: I haven’t seen any of these in years.

Blood Simple (1984)*** – It’s a good film noir thriller set in Texas, but trying to make Frances McDormand into a sexy femme fatale didn’t work particularly well.  She’s too mom-ish.

Raising Arizona (1987)*** – I don’t remember too much of this one other than I just like Nicholas Cage, it had some cute babies, some Looney Tunes style wackiness and I saw it with Rebecca Edwards when we were going out before Melissa Gillin, my ex girlfriend who fucked Dave Brockie from Gwar, killed that relationship.  Three years later, Becky and I fornicated in spite some of the awful things I said about her; I thank Robert Green’s The Art of Seduction for helping me make that happen.

Miller’s Crossing (1990)*** – I hear it constantly being referred to as a “brilliant” movie, and while I enjoyed it, I had trouble following it.  And I’m no ADHD suffering fool.  I pay attention closely.  I honestly remember someone getting shot in the woods at the end.  Wow, what great analysis.

Barton Fink (1991)**** – DING, DING, DING!!!  It’s only a testament to the haphazard way I’ve conducted my life that my favorite Coen Bros. film, their masterpiece, I’ve only seen once on an VHS tape.  What a brilliant breakdown of the Hollywod system; the aspiring writer goes to Hollywood to tell his story and instead is forced to write commercial, wrestling picture.  I REALLY need to revisit this one.

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)** – What a letdown after Barton Fink!  I really didn’t get the point of this one.  It’s set in the 50s, but everyone talks and acts like they’re in a 40s detective film.

Fargo (1996)**** – Their second masterpiece, I believe.  But, then I’m pretty much going to like any movie where a body is fed to a wood chipper.

The Big Lebowski (1998)*** – I think this one is a bit overrated.  I thought it was funny and it’s cool how it’s a remake of Howard Hawks’ 1946 film noir classic The Big Sleep, but other becoming a fun cult film with quotable lines and memorable characters, I don’t see why this one gets so much praise.

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)*** – Another one where I don’t quite get the hype.  I like John Turturro, but I can’t stand George Clooney.  Other than that, I thought the movie was very stylishly done and thought the Odyssey references were cute, along with the car hitting the cow on the road, but that’s about it.  Oh, and the sirens were hot.

The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)**** – Personally, I think this is the Coen Bros. most underrated film.  Both understated AND underrated actually.  It moves slow, but it’s totally fine because it’s supposed to evoke the slower, simpler time in which it takes place.  I guess you could call post-modern neo-noir or something.  I just enjoyed watching the events unfold and Bill Bob Thorton is the shit.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)* – More like Intolerable Movie if you ask me.  Catherine Zeta Jones trying to pull of screwball was painful to watch.  You want a REAL screwball comedy that will have you rolling and slapping your knees, check out Leo McCarrey’s 1937 classic, The Awful Truth starring Cary Grant with Irene Dunn as his foil.

The Ladykillers (2004)* – Pretty much everyone agrees that this is the nadir of their movie career.  I don’t have much to say except that I wasn’t even really impressed with the original 1955 film either.  Maybe somebody, some day will get the concept of five criminals trying to off an old lady, but just end up offing each other correct.

No Country for Old Men (2007)*** – People were like jizzing all over this one when it came out.  I enjoyed it, but it’s really just a slower moving slasher movie that ends with a really depressing monologue from Tommy Lee Jones.  I’ve read Cormac McArthy book as well and it’s pretty good.

Burn After Reading (2008)***1/2 – I REALLY liked this one.  Depiction of plebish everyday dipshits that work gyms and I could only relate to the John Malkovich character too well when he kills the guy just because he’s part of the real Idiocracy.  Of course, I’ve mellowed out since then and prefer hanging with the plebes, rather than the snooty intellectuals, who aren’t actually that smart it turns out.

A Serious Man (2009)**** – HELL YES!!! Of course this movie is easier to relate to if you grew up Jewish.  Granted, I never was raised orthodox, but every single one of the archetypes in this movie is true.  I could only relate too well to the kid that took the big toke hit before reading from the Torah.  I heard that, in the theater I saw it at, several people walked out on account of the Story of Job prologue, which preceded the credits thinking it was a different movie.

True Grit (2010)*** – I really don’t have much to say about this one other than I thought the part where Jeff Bridges was about to rip off the guy’s tongue was kinda gross.  Of course, if Lucio Fulci did the scene, there would be blood squirting everywhere, the guy would have been skinned alive and there would have plenty of evisceration.

As yet, I have not seen Inside Llewyn Davis or Hail, Ceasar!, but I plan on it.

(59:00) I ask the final question about whether Fox News is a cuckservative channel and I reference the nauseating exchange between Megyn Kelly and Micheal Moore.  Another point of disagreement between me and Chapin is that he doesn’t like her new, short, butch haircut.  I slept with a girl named Jen who had a butch haircut and there was nothing butch about her in the sack, so… I still prefer that long, straight, black hair that slutty hair dressers tend to wear though.