Why Mainstream Liberals, Moderates and Democrats Are the Real Problem

eat_a_dickWith some BernieBro “pulling an A-Team” – my new colloquialism for firing a lot of rounds at no particular target and hitting almost nothing – on Majority House Whip Steve Scalise and the recent outrage surrounding Kathy Griffin and her holding a prop of what looked like Donald Trump’s bloody decapitated head, liberals have been feigning outrage, claiming, “GAWSH, they don’t represent US!!! We may HATE Donald Trump and any politician with an ‘R’ by his or her – actually it’s zhe’s, fascists! – name, but we certainly don’t advocate using violence against them!”

I believe that these people are 100% sincere in their claim, and I also believe that they’re sincere when they say things like “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In fact, I have several friends who identify as liberal, leftist and even “left-leaning” who know I voted for Donald Trump and don’t think I’m the antichrist for doing so. We have many fine conversations about a variety of topics from films, music and the arts but, when it comes to politics, many of my liberal or left-leaning friends balk and guffaw at certain claims that I make.

Some of their choice responses include the following:

“Fine, Edwin, if leftism is a mental disorder, than I guess we’re your mentally ill friends!”

“Yeah, SURE, the Democrats JUST want to take your guns! NO WAY are they ACTUALLY concerned about keeping guns away from psychos, unlike your precious Republicans!”

“Come ON, DUDE, you GOTTA at least admit that global warming is real, COME ON!”

“Sure, Edwin, you’re inclusive to ALL people, especially the Muslims, right?”

Now, first of all, as if this point needs to be made in the current year, the concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” are completely meaningless out of context, and furthermore, Democrat and Republican are just the names of parties (if I told you that I love the OLD Democrats, ya know, like George Wallace, you’d probably never talk to me again). When Rory Carroll interviewed me for his piece in The Guardian about conservatives living in Los Angeles, I told him that, like most people, I vote on policies, but because of my beliefs and voting record, I end up on the “conservative” side of the chess board. If you put a gun to my head demanding to know how I label myself, I’d say I’m a basic bitch libertarian (still don’t know if I’m supposed to capitalize that or not) with a wider Overton window than most; this has made my Venn diagram overlap with that of the Alternative Right, which I either am or am not considered a part of by certain people. However the idea of reducing complicated topics – abortion, guns, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, drugs and crime – into binary choices that fall under the categories of “liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right” or Democrat and Republican is simply acting as a herd animal OR lacking in critical thinking.

With my liberal friends, I believe it’s the latter, and that is why they are so dangerous.

I honestly feel that, as much as my liberal friends are astute, analytical and rational about their respective interests, hobbies and professions – film, literature, music, engineering, math, etc. – they are completely ignorant to the mechanisms that have been running our world since at least the mid-1960s.

The negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy after the end of the Cold War and the over the top, cartoony stereotypes surrounding openly right-leaning people have made people afraid to label the left exactly for what it is; Communism. Throw in corporate collusion, and you have Crony Capitalism and Corporatism and have it cross national borders, and you have Globalism, which is nothing more than an attempt by a few elites to enslave the peoples of the world under a totalitarian, one-world government.

On the Savage Hippie podcast, Ann Sterzinger asked me when the “modern, far left version of the Democratic party began.” I told her it started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and his war on poverty, the first real attempt in American history to socially engineer equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

The quick and basic history of the two major American parties goes something like this:

The Republican party began in 1854 with more or less the intention of disrupting the Southern agricultural economy – largely, but not entirely fed by slavery – by pushing for industrialization with factories that were primarily set in the North and owned by top hat wearing, cigar chomping Capitalists with funny mustaches. And if you think for a second that Abraham Lincoln truly cared about emancipating the slaves for some moral reason, you’ve got another thing coming; he made racial statements that would make David Duke blush, and he blatantly claimed that, if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it. On top of that, after the Civil War, he proposed sending every black person back to Africa. Anyway, after the North obviously won the Civil War, by all intents and purposes, the United States became a libertarian country where people were barely taxed, and some people got really rich off of the new industrialized economy; with very little exceptions, there were almost no social programs on the federal level to help people out, and Americans were forced to sink or swim. Some of the ones who swam got rich, effectively showing the potential of a country which gives its citizens the ability to succeed or to fail. Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed, many lost their life savings and a good amount of people lost their faith in a system where the federal government doesn’t take an active role in helping people. Unfortunately, in the three and half decades since FDR’s election in 1932 and the new deal policies which he instated, what was intended to help get a few people working again and to stimulate the American economy morphed into an attempt to socially engineer the nebulous concept of “equality” (again, I ask: equality of what, exactly? Ability? Opportunity?).

So then, am I calling the Democratic party a Communist or Globalist party? No… not entirely…

Again, as I said earlier, I believe liberals and so called left-leaning people mean well, but unfortunately, their lack of in depth political analysis, and their being quick to jump at anything that stinks of “racism”, “sexism” or any word with “phobia” attached to the end of it will be their, and subsequently everyone’s, downfall.

If the war on poverty worked, why are inner city blacks still disproportionately poor? Did any of these people ask that? Do they even know WHAT questions to ask?

The basic notion among the modern “liberal” left is that, if they see something as “unequal”, the laws must be tweaked to “fix” the inequality; it never simply exists as is. Since women and minorities were under-represented in certain professions, well-meaning politicians instilled affirmative action quotas that were implemented either by consent decree or by making the tests to get into certain professions easier; professions such as firefighting. In 1971, IQ testing was outlawed, so now employers had to come up with less efficient ways of testing if a potential employee would be qualified for work. One of the most egregious example of socially engineering equality in recent years is allowing for blacks to get into universities with 200 less SAT points than whites or Asians. Now, I ask, is that judging a man by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin?

When experiments, such as instilling race or sex quotas or the pumping of money into inner city schools in hopes of achieving higher academic success in kids who come from single parent homes and don’t care about learning, fail, do you then continue to pump more money into inner city schools? When having the government pay a single mother for every kid she has leads to her having more kids so she can have more free money and continue to depend on the government, do you continue having the government pay her for to have kids? When stricter gun control measures in Democrat-run inner cities fails to solve the problem of gang-related drive-by shootings, while dinky, “homogeneous” (feel free to consider that “code”) have virtually no gun restrictions and ZERO gun violence, do you push for stricter gun control measures?

In all cases, logic would dictate “no.” So why do liberals keep advocating for such policies?

The old Communists attempted to recruit people off the streets to attend secret “community organization” meetings, in which someone lectured his crowd about the evil, oppressive nature of the Capitalist system. People would be fired up when they compared their working class status to that of the well-to-do Wall Street fat cats, CEO’s and company owners, who live off the labor of the people they employ, crying “it’s not fair!!! Oppression!” A few rubes obviously bought it, at least for a while. But somehow that kind of thinking went by the wayside when the average American got married, bought a house, had a couple of kids and lived happily ever after in a nice, clean suburb. Not the most exciting life, but we can’t all be Rockefeller.

So, when the old-guard Communism didn’t work, the nu-Communists or cultural Marxists, decided the struggle wasn’t going to be between the “haves” and the “have nots”, but between the so-called “dominant” culture and those people it allegedly dominates. Traditional gender roles were apparently “oppressive”, so came the feminist and “women’s lib” movement to address the “imbalance”, even though there was never a time when women were barred from entering scientific or STEM fields; they then, and mostly now, simply CHOSE not to. There was a disparity between the white man and the negro, so clearly whitey CAUSED that disparity, and now the negro needed some payback – forget that welfare more than compensated for any “reparations” and with interest to boot. Somehow Hispanics and Asians are never compared with blacks, only white people. And of course, the culture is too “straight”, and homos need more mainstream representation, so you better accept their dildo swinging, assless-chap wearing “pride” events, or you’re a “homophobe”; have straight people ever needed parades to represent that they like pussy?

And unlike old-guard Communism, the recruitment to become an apparatchik in the “struggle for equality”, isn’t done in secret meetings, but in the classrooms of universities and on “comedy” news programs by “social comedians” like Jon Stewart, Jon Oliver, Trevor Noah and Steve Cobert. Students are taught that a “history of slavery”, “racist policing” and an overall “racist system” is the reason blacks can’t get ahead, yet completely neglect that the Japanese were put into internment camps during World War II and came to dominate the tech industry. Students are taught that there is a “rape culture” under a system of “patriarchy”, even though rape used to be punishable by death; so does that mean that, during less “enlightened” times, we DIDN’T have a rape culture? Apparently, in universities, 1 in 4 women will be a victim of rape… or is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 7? How exactly do they define rape? Is it when a woman walks alone in the street, and a guy pulls her into an alley and has his way with her? Is it when a girl gets too drunk, and a guy fondles her neither regions without her knowledge? Is it when two consenting adults have sex, but since the woman was drunk, she couldn’t REALLY have consented? I’ve done the third example many times, so I guess I’m a rapist even though I’ve been drunk as well.

Oh, and apparently our culture was discriminatory towards gays until we “fixed” that with “gay marriage.” And while one would think the “gay-struggle” was won, and leftists would take a rest, think again! The left now wants you to recognize a man who dresses like a woman as “transgendered” rather than as a man who dresses like a woman, which WAS typically called a transvestite. And while it’s still accepted that a man who has is ding-dong chopped off and replaced with a fake vaginal device is a transsexual, I’m “transphobic” if I prefer not to sleep with or date this person, since I prefer to date and sleep with women who were, ya know, born women.

And, to top it off, in true Orwellian fashion, new words have been invented to describe anyone who fits the dominant culture. If you’re a “straight white man”, you’re now “hetero cis normative.” If you believe that there are two sexes – not counting hermaphrodites – you’re “gender binary.” And if you happen to be white, “hetero cis normative” and “gender binary”, you’re of the dominant culture and have some sort of privilege.

I asked someone an honest question; “if I’m dating a girl, and she decides to identify as a man, does that make me defacto gay?”, and she took to offense to it.

The question of why she took offense to what is a perfectly logical and reasonable question brings us back to our main point. She considers herself a liberal or left-leaning person and believes that my question comes from the insensitive point of view of an oppressor towards people who identify as “non-binary.” She means well, but she knows not what she does, and she will undoubtedly in the future be the kind of person who will push to implement more policies favoring people with the delusion of being “non-binary”, rather than what the person would have been called a decade or so ago; cuckoo.

This same person sees a black person get killed by a police officer and doesn’t question for a second WHY it happened. Was the black person committing a crime? Was he or she being rude to a police officer during a stop? Was he or she resisting arrest? The answer is always the same; racial discrimination. Forget that more whites, than blacks are killed by police. Forget that blacks consist of 13% of the population, yet commit more than 50% of the violent crime – mostly to other blacks. Forget any of the unpleasant details. If a white police officer – or white person in general – shoots and kills a black person, it’s ONLY because he or she harbored racial animus. The solution? Impede police from doing their job with needless bureaucracy. The result? More violence and death in the ghetto and more disparity between whites and blacks as whites leave the ghetto.

This same person hears of a case where a woman is raped on a college campus and doesn’t for a second wonder if alcohol was involved, if the person had sex with someone she didn’t like and then regret it later, or in the case of the phony Rolling Stone gang rape article, completely lie about it. The solution? Kick men off of college campuses if women accuse them of rape. The result? Men stop approaching women in college or at bars because they’re afraid that they too will get in trouble with the law.

This same person will worry about remembering proper pronouns; she’ll worry if she “mis-gendered” a person; she’ll concern herself of whether it’s more racist to “see color” or “be colorblind”; and if this person happens to come in the form of a man, he’ll worry if asking a girl on a date will lead to a charge of sexual harassment, or in some cases, rape.

And this person will think he or she is completely and 100% on the “right side of history” and in keeping with the times. He or she, who doesn’t follow politics in any meaningful way, will never question the narrative and simply try to keep in lockstep with it, thinking that things always need to be ” moving forward”, and with all the well-meaning intentions in the world, he or she will drive us all off of a cliff.

The Truth About Knew York “Hardcore”

capitalism_best_and_brightest

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Yes, every writing is mine. I don’t spend my free time getting drunk at bars just to speak on the woman’s level, so why assume otherwise? Do you ever see me at your stupid parties? To actually pontificate an essential point: let me ask a somewhat rhetorical question: Did you envision the technical formula that would be used to produce your guitar amps? Hmm? Did you weld those metal pieces together. You have your tools to create meaningless pollution, however, I have my tools to create what actually matters.

Those with merit opt for equity, unskilled ones for equality – the confusion of “fairness” for disregarding individual intelligence.

Art school – institutionalized debauchery & inefficacy with delusions of grandeur.

One of the most disturbing phenomena is the cult of the celebrity – the interest in completely unimportant people.

In a Capitalistic system hosted by democracy, what will wrongfully be “better” are people like Shaq, who are basically doing nothing. No. Fuck you, Ayn Rand. The most appropriate system is a technocracy, or some type of meritocracy of science. In a Technocracy, scientists would create robots to replace the menial work.
Technocracy is not political. It’s scientific.

In Knew York, the environment is already hostile. There is a climate of competition & having to prove how “hard” you are. There’s a saying: Move to California to mellow out. Move to Knew York to become hard.
With the Knew York hardcore/post-hardcore/metal-core scenes, it was a degenerate version of the original hardcore, which is hardcore punk.
Many forms of even so called “punkrock” these days is really just a form of grindcore & even metal. The funny thing is: I used to be a “death-rocker.” That’s a hybrid of goth & punk, not new wave, bands like: Deadchovsky, Southern Death Cult, Mighty Sphincter (that’s a hybrid of black metal & deathrock, excluding their thrashy & punk stuff.) 45 grave, Ausgang, the early recordings of Mephisto Walz, early Siouxsie & The Banshees (before they turned new wave), melencholic punkrock like The Mob, Uk Decay, & I used to subsidize for less by going to these more thrashy types of bands, & the people there, who barely even knew the history of punkrock, thought that I was some kind of “poseur”, yet the form of music that I listend to was actually more closely related to traditional punkrock in sound than the punkrock that most punks listen to these days – a lot of versions of thrash, grindcore, & metal.
The point is though is that this thing called Knew York hardcore is that the knew york hardcore scene, which is basically managed by a lot of bullies & idiots, has been hijacked by imposters, & what’s more is that these imposters is a prime example of the Anton Levey mentality, whether they realize it or not, of believing that they’re all, simply put, “hot-shit” for doing nothing. They strut with the notion that they basically just own everything. In actuality, they’re closer to being “poseurs” without even the slightest idea of what the history is, which I’m not defending any side of all that. I don’t care about that juvenile stuff. I only care about knowledge now. I’m just making a point of how juvenile it all really is.

That’s just one derivative. Even in the so called egalitarian scenes of like crust punk or generic punk, they all have this mentality of thinking they’re extra special just because. They have never learned the importance of hierarchy. Hierarchy is a good thing. In these scenes, if you are beyond “peacocking” – you show real intelligence, worth, competence, that’s “getting out of line.”
For all their talk on “wh… (taboo word) privilge” that they just parroted from the mainstream, whether they realize it or not, on their stupid little text phones, or whatever, because it’s somewhat of the new fashionable tattoo to comment on stuff that they don’t really know what they’re talking about, I think they should visit Nigeria where the police are corrupt, it’s extremely violent, & the standard of living is just horrible. This fake virtue signaling is like putting bumper stickers on cars just for vanity & entertainment. They don’t really have a concern for the objective anyway. Privilige happened because they were busy creating it from history, some mistakes sometimes because that’s what happens when you work hard.

The indie rocker community is another version of this politcally correct mediocrity. They’re not going to flaunt it the same way, but they have the idea that they’re all important by just being stylish. I’ve even known some of these idiots who smoked heroin & were worhsipped because they had a sexy way of presenting it. These fucking idiots want to believe that it’s all perfect, beautiful, etc.. Just listen to some Smashing Pumpkins, man, or whatever bands I don’t even care to investigate. That’s probably not a cool band, but whatever. They’ve never actually realized anything beyond plaid shirts, tight pants, & some obscure vinyl records, so if you were to tell them anything real, you’d already be some bad authoritarian figure. Same as the others, different uniform – lame, worthless.

These kids are not “interesting” because they collect obscure art, “extreme”, “independent”, “subversive”, special, or whatever they like to imagine themselves in front of their mirrors. You can’t even give them a slight suggestion or a realistic dialogue without them reacting. It’s just vanity & emotions. How is that “intense”? That’s womanly. (E)m(p)t(y)v. losers = empty.

Rhetorical statement: Although I will admit SOME black metal is good, like bands as Vigsoroth Moshamarahoth, which I would be very glad if someone can send a link to their full music selection because I’ve been trying to re-find this lost band, one song sounds like nebulous violence, most black metal is not what it is hyped as “strong”, “intense”, “powerful,” “brutal”, etc..  There’s some impressive blast-beats by Immortal, but most of that stuff really just sounds like 5 to 10 minutes of struggling.

Bragging in a crowd, implicitly or otherwise – there’s already people with low i.q.s doing that. They’re called rappers.

When I had a previous blog that gained some fame a few years ago, which is why I switched to other methods, many of these types of “Mtv.” losers started rumours on the internet about how I was some kind of faker & that I just contrived what I typed about because their casual schema is bounded by beer, music, fashion, & things directly related to that, so anything beyond that is just too mysterious to them. Most want to give orders, but no one wants to take orders from an intelligent authority.

Nietszhe, Raynd, Le vey, it’s all just Mtv. I’m not enchanted or impressed.

The more the culture over-emphasizes instincts & performing, the more jaded & entitled the consumers become. With the calculating approach, the skilled & competent can preponderate rational, scientific sovereignty, not the fake kind feted for the superficial & carnal, by reclaiming the dormant scientific recovery, truly representational of progress, which has been adumbrated by imbuing by the apposite type.

There’s been some mass confusion on a particular word. I will type, with citations, the etymology of the word hipster.

Sure, I used to like some of them on a superficial level when I was younger – because they made some impressive music, etc., but now I don’t have to pretend anymore, & for those who are thinking about becoming better than all that, trust me, none of what bounds your social groups with others is good enough. These (empty) M.-TV.-losers thought that I “sold out”/quit their little groups due to an apparent – what they assumed – “inferiority complex.” Essentially, the life-styles were people barking, some drinking, posing, & some competition, occasional fighting, etc.. I thought: Really – this is the game I have to involve myself in? Now that I don’t have to be bombarded by the stupid subtle contest of who is the most fashionable, etc., I’m now more free. It takes a high level of narcissism to believe that typical (e)M.(p)t(y)v. lifestyles is somehow “phenomenal”. You’re not “extreme”, or anything like that. You’re just deluded enjoyer types.

The “M.t.v.”/”hipster” culture – glamorizing an absurd version of consumerism & modeling – was born of the 1930s jazz scenes, also called “hepster” for those who knew about that music & smoking marijuana. Oh no, you feel bad for me because I’m reporting something realistically & all you mostly know is feelings. “Hepster” was printed as early as June 8, 1938 in ‘Variety’ Magazine, & had been “hipster” in the early 1930s in association with fashionable dancing – movement of a person’s hips, then morphed to “hippy”, then traveling to spawn Black Sabbath, influenced by both “blues” & hippy Rock-`n-roll, which then spawned the various “doom” styles & other branches – all same branches of one tree. The modern-day hippy/hipster/punk-rocker, & it’s various sub-styles – metal-head, goth, raver, lounger, etc., is mostly a person, but not limited to, of *Eu****** ancestry ( * Star before “bad-word” indicates foot-note. If you read books, you know what a foot-note is. I’m not trying to be “witty.” However, stars occluding word indicates “bad word”) acting like a ne****. It was sympathy romanticized from the ~1930s trash jazz groups spawning the various experimental styles now, then disco, then various electronic, etc., & the blues groups spawning swing, rockabilly, & all the various sub-genres from rock-`n-roll. Hippies came from hispters, & the modern day indie/punk, etc., came from from hippies.

There’s much more important mastery than collecting series of bursts of happiness, inaccurately called experiential “learning”. I’ve seen these M.T.V. losers abscond to serious plans & have had this done to me as well because there is this silly attitude that many have that because they can emulate M.T.V. idols really well, they have the unrealistic notion that they are extra-important, accompanied by disgusting losers who like to imagine themselves as more “clever” & “stronger” because they’re willing to cheat & sell drugs, etc.. With these “M.t.v.” losers, claiming of plans would be deceptive when it was no longer entertaining to them, then when questioned or suggested about it, they’d resort to calling you “materialistic”, or something, or disrespect your needs, even though they’re the ones so addicted to sensation seeking – a form of internalized materialism, which makes them flighty. I got influenced by these idiots’ cute-little-jokes when I was younger when I was a truly despicable person. Associating with these “M.tv.” losers is completely anti-constructive. Everything is just turned to a vanity instance. These M.tv. losers have joined the trend of making fun of something different – me, & I’m not complaining about it from a “hurt” state, but what I am stating is that these M.tv. losers can’t create anything original, so they follow & emulate. But the main reason I despise these “M.tv. losers” most of all is because they’re addicted to pleasure/sensation seeking/ego gratification & they continue to promote more of it, which also promotes lies & insincerity from distractions. Even the word sincerity sounds like something to have connotations of the crippled, & it actually just means deceit.

In all-caps to signify deep inhales (it’s outhales that are hard, jabrony-blowhee fucker dawg:

POSTMODERN AESTHETES ARE INFECTED WITH “FEEL GOODITUS” – STUPIDITY FROM INFATUATION. IT’S THE CONTAMINATION OF MULIEBRITY. THESE “SUBCULTURES” – (OR AS I LIKE TO NEOLOGISE: SUB-COUTURE) AESTHETES – WILL TAKE FRUSTRATION OUT ON THEIR FELLOW BROTHERS. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR FRUSTRATED, IRRATIONAL TRIBALISM STEMS FROM AN UNHEALTHY INSTINCTUAL YEARNING TOWARDS SYMBIOSES WHO EVALUATE & DENY A SOCIAL LADDER ON THE BASIS OF CATHARSIS.

APPARENTLY, THE SOCIOLOGIST NORMAN MAILER, WHO, I THINK, WAS SADLY PRO THIS “MOVEMENT”, BRINGS CLARITY ON THIS SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN DEGRADED BY IRONY AS A DEFENSE MECHANISM. THE WORD (NOTICE: PLEASE FOCUS ON THE DESCRIPTION OF STUPID ACTIONS OF THAT WORD RATHER THAN THE WORD ITSELF THAT HAS LOST MEANING THROUGH IRONY, AS THAT IS HOW THESE PEOPLE COUNTER ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. THEY “DEFEAT” THE CONTEXT BY DILUTING THE CONTEXT, & THEY APPLY THIS WORD LOOSELY TO A MYRIAD OF PEOPLE TO TRY TO EVADE THE DEFINITION.

THEY FEEL EXCLUDED EASILY. YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU ARE BEGINNING A NEW HOBBY & THEY WILL RECEIVE THAT AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE & THEN THEY WILL STATE SOMETHING TO TOP YOUR STATEMENT OR WILL ADOPT YOUR NEW HOBBY WITH THEIR OWN LITTLE RENDITION , NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FLOW OF THE CONVERSATION OR TO UNDERSTAND AN ACTIVITY, BUT JUST TO REAFFIRM COMPETITION IN THEIR LITTLE “COOL KID RETARD” CONTESTS – A CONSTANT VANITY STRUGGLE. THEY ENGAGE IN DEBATES NOT BECAUSE OF GENUINE INTEREST IN INQUIRY OR CORRECTING, BUT JUST TO HOG MORE ATTENTION.

THEY ONLY THINK IN 2 SIMPLISTIC TERMS; “EITHER YOU’RE HIP OR YOU’RE SQUARE”. BUT WHERE DOES THIS PRIMITIVE FEELING BASED MODE OF “THINKING” & SENSATION SEEKING REALLY COME FROM? IT’S UNCONSCIOUSLY EMULATED FROM SOMETHING ELSE, OR RATHER, OTHERS. RATHER THAN SPECIFYING FURTHER, I’LL GIVE YOU THE WONDERFUL OPTION OF FIGURING IT YOURSELF.

They allow art & sports in academia so all the females & retards can feel special. It’s a democratic form of understanding based on a double arrowed property of flattery. Society will not give the podium to anything ratiocinitive because that would result in the enforcement of the separation of direct subjectivity. The ones who should be winning “Grammy awards” are the ones who are conducting rigorous research, cracking mathematical codes, showing light in a world of darkness, not your fucking “Hollywood rockstars” & “pin-up models”.

Related to the hippy culture, or fashions, actually: uncharted aspects of education:

“Learning” by regalement is not good enough for me. Most rebuttals against me have been that I need to experience the validation of what is counter to ratiocination. The same culmination I have gathered has been shared by other men who are either in their mid. ages or who are seniors, if they weren’t spared such conclusions at the time when many women seek middle aged men to use for all the time that was wasted in their younger years. I gained the answers in my early 20s. I already nebulously knew in my late teens, but did not refine the answers until my early twenties. Martin Van Creveld, author of ‘The Privileged Sex’, who I cite subsequently, is one of those who is both much older, as well as highly bookish – double the power.
Females are accommodated from dangers of all kinds – physical, emotional, & mental. First I will Explain the physical & emotional aspects, then the mental aspects. It’s not necessarily bad to accommodate them from such. What is bad is when that atmosphere presides most of a culture.

For one example, Males In Britain are more likely to suffer from lack of psychological support, overcrowding, & lack of amenities. Most males universally already want to be tough around age 4.

There are behaviours & attitudes that would make parental & authority figures create difficulty for the male child. It is conversed for female children.

To say that the following is due to “patriarchy” is faulty. It all commences from feminine oblique appraisement. Females naturally have an inborn prepossession for the most leathery of the apposite sex, regardless of what they express to be the contrary, & they favor this over brainpower. They might be attracted to doctors, for example, but not because of the will of his mental concentration, but because that doctor holds authority. That is generally what females are mostly concerned with. If you don’t believe, try this: next time she customarily asks you “how are you”, reply with “not so good.” You’ll notice that your relationship will soon recess & possibly be terminated because of her.

In many societies around the world, males may have to endure humiliation by having their hair removed, even pubic hair occasionally removed, make absurd poses, get naked in front of elders, recite self mockeries. Symbolically familiar? Ordeals of nutritional & sleep deprivation can also occur, & physical pain, such as body modification & tattoos. In Papua New Guinea, some tribes climb to a high place, fasten a rope around their leg, & then plummet. (Supposedly what inspired bungee jumping). Just very basic samples of universals. Other many examples would be too lengthy for other readers, & possibly exasperating. The enigmatic issue of male genital mutilation is the biggest example. Tribal women in Australia told a researcher that they would not marry a man who could not show himself to bear the pain. It is seldom told by reasoning to discipline young males to remain hygienic & in control of such regions because reasoning is extirpated. Simply, females select stupid males, so we have a stupid society. Female genital mutilation is outnumbered & due to amateurish societies jointly, not males-oppressing-females. Many actions of such cultures are poor.

On the mental aspects accommodated:

By around the early 1900s, it was not absolutely mandatory for females to take hard courses of mathematics, Greek, natural sciences, & Latin. This was the prototypical setting to modern equal opportunity.

What female separatist schools shared in common was pleasantries. The Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who once managed such a school, stated that it was here where the pupils were “first spoiled”, both for the U.S. & earlier Russia.

From 1850, schools became intensely feminized. By 1900, 0.75% of all public school teachers in the U.S. were women. By 1920, it was 90% & above. Boys were now being taught en masse by women for the first time in history, which caused the boys to be treated more like girls. They were disadvantaged because of this.

By 1950, females were getting better grades than males in elementary school not because of better skills, but because of more accommodation for females. The trend has grown since then to also high school & universities. Simultaneously, importance of grading has been ruined. When schools admitted females, they were hustled to remodel the system to meet females’ needs.

Because more educational opportunities are open for females, they also have more collegiate options, like the arts. One of the feminine demands is to include cleaning & cooking to be worthy of grants as much as Latin & Algebra.

If females were separately taught, it has been claimed that they’re discriminated against. If taught with boys, that they’re needs aren’t supplied.

Feminists blame the fact that females’ tendency to be involved in the humanities & the arts is due to society steering them towards such. It’s usually the apposite actually. Past attempts to introduce technical work to females didn’t change females’ tendency.

A president of Harvard – Larry Summers – actually lost his rank because he dared to suggest that there should be further studies on mental differences of the sexes.

Surveys conducted by several countries prove that female academics are generally less productive than males.

Other than perhaps devising a means to rate how technical a female can be, usually sexually dimorphic – masculine – females, it’s best to keep females simple & out of the way of male endeavor. Invent new schools for females to specifically further their generally limited nursing capability.

Advocating their traits in academia does not only have consequences in academia, but also in the external social arenas as well.

Political Correctness is a tool used by governmental factions as an attempt to control populations by economics. Since these factions are concerned with maintaining economics, they would not be concerned with idealism/”spirituality” derived from truth of real science, only a means to support practical materialism so that populations are preoccupied with consuming.

Obviously, in order for political correctness to thrive well, it had to acquire help from academia. To try to present political correctness as “scientific”, The Institute for Social Research was opened at the University of Frankfurt in 1923. To ward off deeper thinking & discernment, one of the dominant ideas in the humanities field & social sciences would be that society itself was the most powerful force determining how we all are. There is some truth to this, of course, considering how this social engineering will cause most supporters of scientific realism in a debate to be bombarded with counter-arguments that “sexual identity is a social construct”, or who try to dodge the nature-vs.-nurture debate by loosely replacing a newer concept of sex with the word “gender”.

Scientific realism is that biology precedes culture; the phenotypic – nurture aspect – realities we have now were originally cast by genotype – nature aspect. If there is variation in how populations behave now which influences behaviour, they originate from rudimentary nature which caused the nurturing effect of the environment to reflect upon that.

It had been said that Plato once stated that if the artists are given too much dominion over the mind, there will be a decline in society.
One of these obstacles to scientific realism that helped foster these ideas that society is solely & only shaped by the external culture were the behaviourists, which would unfortunately give support to the “flower-power” generation in later years who held the same belief, which was the predecessor to the adherents of postmodernity that uses notions of taste to try to detract scientific realists in this entertainment era fueled by mostly distractions – the generation upon generation of young daughters who think they’re smart & qualified because daddy bought them a certificate that states they studied puppetry, or whatever, who have their parents give them lots of money to fund for their “collegiate” pursuits of smoking marijuana when they’re not attending their stupid art classes, whilst drinking alcohol & having sex with jiving degenerates because they’re entertaining. They act like independent thinkers with their glibness but they’re “independent” thinking is only supported by un-courageous thought processes inflamed by the dramatic & pleasing.

The politically correct & postmodernist can not tolerate the drudgery of real science, so they look to more mesmerising beliefs such as psychoanalysis & ‘Critical Theory’. ‘Critical Theory’ taught today in the humanities field of universities was contrived from when the Frankfurters in the 1930s started to probe culture much more to have a better understanding of how socio-economics grow. It’s an extension of the politically correct idea of a dialectical critique for the purpose of not to understand truth but to try to make populations complacent consumers.

The behaviourist Skinner – a proponent of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ belief – liked to think of himself as “scientific” but he only proceeded his dull craft of social engineering psychology after failing as a fiction writer. Along with the fashionable word-maze artist Michel Foucault that Feminists have been influenced by because of his statements that the body & sexuality are purely “cultural constructs”. Eric Fromm – a non-technical psychoanalyst lacking in neuroscience & biology – was another key figure building on the work of the anti-science of the ‘Frankfurt School’ of political correctness. If you are the type who can sharpen your own mind by grinding your thoughts against dull slabs of tablets, you can discern the political correctness in writings like Fromm’s ‘Art of Loving’ & ‘Sane Society’. Adherents of his liked to shun that intelligence is heritable in the 1970s. Fromm is one of the key figures who especially tried to think himself as adequate enough to speak on differences of males & females, stating the “socially constructed nature of sex” in his post structural writings.’Eros & Civilization’ by Herbert Marcuse was a major un-scientific piece of garbage that helped spawn the 1960s rebellion of the youth who held the attitude that progress is meaningless & fashion & escapism is good enough, hence their dislike of real science that requires much discipline.

These -isms & pseudo intellectuals posing as true philosophers & social scientists were key figures in promoting the self centered me-me, rebel-without-a-brain attitudes of the 1960s generation that Feminism aligns itself with.

Not exactly the same but paralleling these anti-scientific people, Laveyan Satanism is for those who prefer something that seems different but still above-all encourages the same a-science escapism & Dionysian hedonism that reinforces subjective sentiments & distractions. One of Anton Szandor Lavey’s insistence is that people who are that stupid should be taken advantage of to be propitiated away from competence. This just stokes more stupidity & dis-functionality that ruins it for the intelligent who don’t deserve it. Laveyan Satanism borrowed heavily from Nietzsche – a descent poet that liked to over-hype himself as “important” while favoring the Dionysian aspect over the calm, more thoughtful Apollonian aspect, who appropriately became infected with a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute. The philosopher Ayn Rand also pontificated further Nietzche’s “will to power” by re-appropriating what it means to be objective. Real objectivists are doing science free of cultural conditioning, not seeking happiness & evasion.

I hate so many philosophers.

The biological probabilism that is essential to understand scientific realism is the forerunner before cultural nurturance. The pervasiveness of such cultural figures reveals that such politics is used to advancing themselves as an organism naturally would try to in order to adapt to the environment. They conceal the original scientific realities of biological probabilism so that logical coherence is weak to create cultures of the farcical & the attitudes in people that they’re level of conjecture is special, that what is contemporary with what is marketed, & acceptable by such a populist, is better than the quality of highly rigorous work, & that science is a “big-bad-authoritarian” enemy, when it’s actually used to make societies functional.

Thankfully, just like how when a male injecting himself with an affair with an unavailable female reveals to the original romantic partner how she truly handles so called dedication & that the original partner was entangled in an illusion, during the attempt to muddle distinctions of true femininity & masculinity, destroying the family unit only revealed, to those smart enough, the true nature of females. It is females who are the most receptive to Feminism & related ideas that amplifies their true nature. It is females who are receptive to such illogical ideologies because females are themselves illogical, which only disproves p.c.’s antithesis of biological probabilism further.

So, closing with final need realizations:

This is a transcript of an audio presentation. Instead of assuming as an idiot by slander that because I’m minutely using others’ models, that I’m “inauthentic”, think, instead, of how much hard work was implemented in re-typing from sound format & how that would be logically inferable of how diligent I would be in my ability. I compose much more elaborately than the following representatives, so…. There were three commentators in the audio dialogue. For the sake of convenience, I have labeled Jacque Fresco’s commentary as “J.F.”, “C.#1” – commentator number 1, & C.#2 – commentator number 2. Also for convenience, I have discarded small irrelevant stuff, such as “um”, etc., & other garbling stuff.

This subsequent pre-commentary is mine:

The coherent understanding of collectivism is a cowardly means of following trends & orientations which keeps progress static, or, in many cases, actually causing detriment; in a case of bystanders joining a pecking order in expulsing a genius with better plans because another authority group judged the expulsion to be the good action.

A collectivist would give you a false answer.

The coherent understanding of individualism is individual thoughts, not instinctual drives, that causes intellectual evolution.

It’s a tricky understanding because almost any idiot with delusions can claim to be enlightened, but this is actually due to collectivism’s insistence of congealed temporal habituation that pauses real intricate idealism. The minority ones with the truth are scoffed after the attrition with: “You’re insane.” More accurately: One becomes unnerved from dealing with others’ foolishness.

Because sociological vocabulary is often depriving, individualism taking over a culture would paradoxically be “collectivism.” It’s individualism – intellectually evolved by disaffection, as those are the alienated ones concerned with technical details – that would cease deprived contention.

The universally initial appreciation for a given art-form is predicated on its own introduction; meaning: you only like what you’re exposed to, & you think it’s “significant,” but it is only “significant” because your limitation to the style of it deludes one to not understanding that all aesthetic forms are trivially generic; “my extreme blackened thrash noise wall is different & better than the juggallo-surfer-indie,” when, aside from a very slight variation of language that is emblematic of temperaments & inclinations, it is actually all relatively the same, & only fixed by a difference of an opinion of liking or disliking (sometimes neutral). Even forms, for example, classical music, that acclaims of superiority because of abiding by an attentively required formula is trivial. What a waste of time. All the grand concentration held by the producers of the latter could be used for something better, instead of wasting that skill on a self-insulting level. Art does not make you smart. If you think art makes you intelligent, you are the proof of how stupid you are. This delusion then creates the attitude that a generic one is special because this mistaken notion that a personally entertained figment is only of themselves, when it is actually just a different version of the same universally, & gives the maudlin feeling ; “I just can’t explain it” – a form of confused retardation.

Since appreciation for a given art-form is only predicated on its own introduction, an anti-art technocratic oriented society only functioning on rationalism would replace such preexisting stalling notions because the extra result from rationalism would naturally instill stimulation or tranquility, thus putting the universal & generic truth about art back in order. For example, generators make stimulating sounds. The shimmer of metal is stimulating. It is even more stimulating if that’s all you’ve been introduced to.

We don’t need these disgusting attitudes in society that one is extra-important just because they have “talent”. Intelligence is what matters the most.

The worded recording:

J.F.: “In a tribe that was just about to go to war, & they were tense, & they danced around the fire, & yelled & screamed, they danced around the fire & relieved that tension before they got into battle. Soldiers, when they march, sing. The reason for that is to take their mind off: “how’s my wife doing?” “I wonder what’s happening at home with my kids.” But if you got them singing, like the Marines sing ‘Blood Makes The Grass Grow,’ takes the attention away from home, you’re better off, & if you can involve them in little games, dancing, sports, that takes the attention away from social problems.

Boxing, wrestling – sports in the future, there will be nobody punching one another because that damages the brain, & nobody seems to give a damn, except that they like that. A ballet dancer in later years will have a lot of trouble with her ankles. What they do is not good for the body, & they rehearse long hours, & they damage their body because we have emphasized ballet – we like it.

Now, if you consider ancient Rome, where they used to feed Christians to the lions, & kids would say “Daddy, can we come next week to see Christians being fed to lions?” Daddy might say “If you behave yourself.” Now, these kids are not mentally ill. (My commentary: I completely disagree. Most humans, usually the intellectually un-evolved, are naturally sick because of their cowardly collectivism towards almost any expectations.) They’re brought up in a society that’s warped. Our society is warped.

It’s hard for me to talk about the things that normal people have come to like. Do you understand what I mean? It’s like walking over to an Indian, saying “Why are you dancing around the fire with feather hats?” That’s ridiculous. The Indian doesn’t say “Gee, thanks for telling me that. I never thought of it that way.” Don’t you see, people can no longer step out of their culture by a lecture or a single movie. It just takes a long time to learn where these things came from, how they emerged, how they evolved.

Now, putting decorations through your ear, piercing your ear, something dangle from your ear, if a  person came from another planet, they had a watch on the wrist, he might say “what is that?” You’d say “well, I can’t keep accurate time. This machine helps me keep time.” & He’d say “what are those glass things in front of your eyes that appear to be transparent?” He’d say “well, I’m losing my eyesight where I can’t read, I can’t see anything far away, & this helps me.” “Well, what’s that thing hanging from your wife’s ears?” “Oh, that’s decoration.” “Yes, but what is it..” See what i mean? That’s the same as a primitive person painting their face in different colors to keep evil spirits away. Now, they say that with a straight face. You can’t tell them what they’re doing is primitive, backwards”

C.#1: “You know, being an individual is not how many rings you have through your nose, or what color your hair is, or if your hair stands straight up, or, you know, the clothing that you wear. It’s how you think, & you have to think about what all these different fashions are for, too. A lot of people make a lot of money by changing fashions every year, so it’s good to consider the motive of all these things.”

J.F.: “Same with automobiles. They hang a tail-fin on them, or a… (can’t distinguish word). This is all artificial. I would spend all that money on safety devices, instead of a tail-fin. Like, if you build a monument to veterans, the veterans think that’s a good thing. I think it’s a terrible idea. If you have any surplus money for monuments, give it to the veterans’ hospital, & build M.R.I. machines & x-ray machines. Build what is needed in the hospital to help veterans, not a monument.”

C.#1: “You know, in the old days, we didn’t have cameras & things like that, so people painted portraits of one another, & they were pretty accurate, & they were pretty good at one time, but today we have the camera. We can even do x-rays right through people if we want to see what they look like, but you don’t need people to draw portraits of them anymore. A camera does a better job in many instances.”

J.F.: “But you can’t superimpose that because people were brought up with ‘art appreciation.’ There’s a lot of parasitic beliefs we have that will vanish in the future (My comment: Good!). I don’t expect people to turn around at one of my lectures, but I do hope they’ll think about it.”

C.#2: “You’re saying, to a degree, at somewhat, that they’re irrelevant, but, yet, you decide that in the future, they’re still going to be “sinners” with cameras & musical instruments & all the equipment that someone would need to perform these artificialities?”

J.F.: “Yes, that’s true, during the transition.”

C.#2: “Oh, during the transition.”

J.F.: “You need all those things as normal people, so called “normal.”….. A “normal” French man accepts France. A “normal” headhunter accepts headhunting.”

C.#2: So you’re saying, eventually, we won’t need those “sinners” anymore?”

J.F.: “We will have new forms – new art forms. I’m using the word art because that’s what people associate it with. But in the future, we’ll have new art forms. I’ll tell you a little bit about what that means. New art forms means that furniture will not be designed by artists or designers. Furniture will be designed by anatomists & physiologists to conform with the human body; as they lean forward, the chair helps you get out; the chair adjusts itself to the pressures, rather than you moving on the chair all the time to change the pressure-point, the chair will move. That’s what I mean by anatomists; Dinner wear will be designed by people that study the physiological shape of the human body, & the forks & knives will be designed to best accommodate human attributes.
Art was a great thing 100 years ago, where people didn’t have any ideas at all so they just made a lot of people buy a Kennedy-rocker. Its a most uncomfortable chair in the world, but Kennedy had one, & he was an important man, so people did things un-sane. Un-sane means not the best way for the human body.

It’s going to take a lot of movies, a lot of education. You can’t practice medicine without going to a medical environment. First You have to go to medical school. If you want to be an engineer, engineering school. You have to go to an engineering environment. We are not brought up that way today, so we have thousands of problems that generate more problems, as we invent more & more laws. Laws do not deal with problems. They’re attempts at a quick fix, but they don’t deal with the the problem. We have to eradicate the conditions that produce serial killers.

In the future, all this was transitional – the golf courses, the tennis courts. That’s all transitional. You can’t suddenly put a new society down & outlaw the patterns that people have been conditioned to. They have to outlaw that through knowledge.”

C.#1: “Yeah, there’d be churches in the city, too. You can’t ban anything, otherwise it goes underground. It doesn’t work.”

Search for recording: Art in the Future – Jacque Fresco

Citations:

‘The Woman Racket – The New Science Explaining How The Sexes relate at Work , At Play & in Society, pages 6 – 11.

‘The Privileged Sex’ by Martin Van Creveld, pgs. 48,49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60. (Much enemies, much honor indeed. There’s more cited examples of the dominance hierarchies, not intellect hierarchies, females create but, it’s enough typing.)

Why Are People on the Left Obsessed with Balance?

book_stack_2.0In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, I’ve lost a number of Facebook friends, including a couple of gay ones, who tried to pin the attack on the “Christian Right” or the precarious concept of “homophobia.”  Anyone who isn’t completely retarded knows that the reason Omar Mateen opened fire on a bunch of gays in a gay club is because he’s a Muslim, and Muslims hate gays.  He openly expressed ties to ISIS and acted exactly as his holy book told him to.

And, believe it or not, there ARE people on the left who completely agree that Islam is exactly what motivated Mateen.  HOWEVER – and this is HUGE – leftists STILL feel the need to give a tit for tat rationalization for the event.  In other words, even though this guy acted in the name of his whackadoodle death cult, according to leftists, Christians are JUST AS likely to act in the same way.  And aren’t they correct?  I mean, you have the Westboro Baptist church and this hilarious black preacher yelling about gays shooting fire out “they ass”, and you have the Crusades, and you have Timothy McVeigh and Dylann Roof and Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodger; clearly, nutjobs come in all walks of life.

Except these arguments are all completely wrong.  If Christians are JUST AS likely to commit the atrocities that Muslims commit, how come something like 30,000 of the last terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been linked to Islam?  When is the last time a group of Christians flew planes into buildings, opened fire into gay clubs, raped a bunch of women on New Years Eve or blew up the Bataclan in France?  And, last time I checked, the Crusades happened more than 700 years ago.  Christians en masse don’t do that anymore.

And, for Timothy McVeigh, Dylann Roof, Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodger, you literally have such a diverse motivation for their actions, that to find any pattern at all, other than that they’re crazy and should not have had access to the weapons they possessed, is completely disingenuous.  McVeigh was a crazy militia guy who hated the government, Roof was racist, Harper-Mercer was sort of like a cross between McVeigh and Roof, only he was half black, and Rodger was pissed off that he was still virgin at 22, not to mention being half Asian.

Yet, I still have a Facebook friend who claims that Christianity’s influence, while not having the direct, “kill all the infidels” message of Islam, infiltrates more subliminally, commanding the McVeighs and Roofs of the world to kill people.  I’m sorry, but that’s really dumb.  That’s so dumb, that I wonder if this person is just saying it because he NEEDS to maintain the notion of balance, that “there’s assholes in every crowd”, or if he legitimately believes it.

He’s right about one thing.  There certainly ARE assholes in every crowd.  Nobody denies that.  There are also good people in every crowd as well, including Islam.  But individual circumstances or the “have you actually met a (fill in the blank) person before?” philosophy completely goes counter to the law of large numbers, which we have been using for centuries to figure out how to deal with different groups of people.  Unfortunately the left, or rather the politically correct left, simply cannot fathom that some races, ethnic groups, sexes (and there’s only two) or religions are over or under represented in various walks of life simply because they are.  Or maybe they secretly DO realize this, but don’t want to say so out loud.

I was talking to another friend of mine I told him that it’s not racist to blatantly say that black ghettos are dangerous and violent, more violent than the ghettos of any other group of people.  His response to me was that poor, white trash areas are ALSO violent.  Yeah, because statistically speaking, trailer parks are known for their crack gangs and drive by shootings, where little children are gunned down.  It’s that denial that leftists wallow in just so they don’t have to confront the ugly reality that maybe some groups of people haven’t gotten their shit together.

I dare ask why a place, such as Ferndale, MI, which is right next door to a crime ‘n’ crack infested shithole like Detroit is almost entirely free of crime.  I read that police officers were accused of stopping blacks and Latinos more often than anyone else for traffic violations.  This means either that cops are overly mean to dark people or that dark people from Detroit are simply speeding more.  Either way, considering how blacks are responsible for over 50% of homicides and make up only 13% of the population of the entire country, there IS a reason why they’re not bringing much of that violent crime over the Eight Mile Rd. divide, which separates Ferndale from Detroit.  And I’m fairly it isn’t because of an invisible force field.

A couple of my friends also wanted to draw the direct parallel to college kids rioting whenever their football teams won or lost.  Real smart there guys; last time I checked college football riots didn’t destroy entire communities and make business owners pack up shop when they collected their insurance checks and moved to other communities, ones less prone to self destruction.  Another one of my friends drew a direct parallel between the Ferguson rioters with the group of bikers who caused a bunch of trouble last year, as if that too is a common occurrence.  You see, numbers.

But, of course, actually saying any of that will get you branded as an evil, racist, neo-Nazi, poo-poo head.

Just like it will get you called a racist for complaining that Indians (dots, not feathers) bargain too much.  A former QuickenLoans coworker who is Asian (Korean, I think) complained about this, that every time she hears “that accent”, she knows she’s going to have to be on the phone that much longer to try to hammer out a deal.  She also told me that I’m not allowed to make this same observation because I’m white.

Or get you called anti-semitic for pointing out that nearly every major media outlet is owned and/or run by Jews; Jews like Steven Spielberg who make movies like Schindler’s List in order to shove heaping piles of guilt down everyone’s throat, as if most people who saw the film were ever involved with the Holocaust.

Or get you called a sexist pig for pointing out that the reason women only make $0.77 for every man’s dollar is because they choose easier professions that don’t pay as much along with working less hours.  If every woman in the world stopped working, the only professions that would be greatly affected would be nursing and elementary school teaching.  Yet, since women insist they’re equal to the men, they go through college, bust their asses AND… get mediocre office jobs that anybody could do.  Or get bumped up to H.R. positions, so they can discriminate against men, mainly white men.  Ever wonder why the staff at Huffington Post is ALL women?  Yeah, me neither.

But, wait, isn’t women’s soccer more popular than men’s soccer?  Shouldn’t THEY be making as much as the men.  First of all, no, it’s not, and, second of all, how much they make is up to whoever THEY negotiate deals with.  For the women’s soccer league to demand as much money as the men’s is the same as people who work at Walmart complaining that they don’t make as much as the people at Meijer.  Why is it Meijer’s responsibility to make sure Walmart employees are paid more?    It makes no sense; but, it makes good propaganda!

So, what gives, eh? I don’t freakin’ know.  Since nowadays you can choose what race, sex, ethnicity or species of animal you want to be, there’s no reason to complain about inequality at all.

 

 

 

Unraveling An Excusatory Locution

excusatory_locution

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

There is a common locution they like to use as an excuse to evade when they get bored or repulsed by a male. Perhaps you, as a male, are not that familiar with it because it is likely that it has been uttered in secret amongst their gossiping consensus before they’ve decided to end a relationship with you via telephone call or some other indirect means. That locution is “he put me on a pedestal”.

 Females have a completely different form of speech first of all; what they say is not necessarily in conformity to their nature. Females speak in suggestive speech. It’s not the same sort of terse honesty that males share.

In this society that does not allow real objective analysis of human nature, you will get uncertain analysis, but at least some, like myself, have the decency to try. This is just my theorizing, but it is valid:

The reason females use this distinctively female phrase, “he put me on a pedestal” (as if they could be content with a male that could be completely detached in how he treats her) to rid what is to them a pest is because, to females, the way a male implies that a female completes them & wishes to have fuller access to her affection & support is an implicit offer that cheapens a female’s sexuality.

This way of placing her as more of a peer is actually the opposite of “putting her on a pedestal”.

You have to remember that female “logic” is often backwards, &, because they have so much power in society, they often inculcate backward meaning.

 What that phrase reveals is how they treat others, in addition to the fact that females take romance for granted because females have the luxury of waiting for more offers to quickly monopolize. Their solipsistic vantage restricts them from understanding the energy used that appears to be weakness. Females thrive off of socializing by fake flattery. In fact, all that is required in many cases for a female to be “right”, in the case of a male shattering her thought process with brutal truth, is for her to go to her consensus for emotional support. It’s the quantity of how many compliments & opinions she will get from her group that will “prove the other person was wrong”. In a female’s mind a male “putting her on a pedestal” is interpreted as something potentially “ungenuine” because that is how females thrive in their friendships, so they are often perplexed by something they often can’t do – being honest, which leads to their presumption of a parasitic male.

Often disregarding what costs was required for that male to get power, females are basically obsessed with power, either in the case of utilizing it from a pragmatic beta male, or in the case of aligning herself with an alpha male, so when they dismiss a male for “putting her on a pedestal”, it’s because she takes it as weakness from him. This unfortunate trap that males experience is due to males being gullible to female illogical language. Our entire society revolves around this gullibility. It’s called gynocentrism.

Her source of her power comes from her sex. She can’t totally control her utility if that male cheapens her sexuality. Only a certain type of male is allowed to do that – a brute, but not a proper male.

In other words: If you get a brain tumor, she will cheat on you with a primitive with a 12 inch penis & then end it with you via skype. This statement is interchangeable because it is both metaphorical & often realistic.

They’re not teaching this in college sociology or psychology courses so it must be “wrong”. I’m using sarcasm.

Some like to claim “not all women are like that.” “I’m not like that.”. Well, this doesn’t concern you then, does it?

Scientific confirmations have concluded that females can be with males they are not drawn to. Generally, The “beta” male is used for her own promotion but that is not the one she respects nor is attracted to. The one she has respect & is attracted to is the one who can cause commotion.

Females are naturally collectivists, so they are obsessed with following & selling out for trends. If a male shows that he is a main figure of a trend, she will likely be drawn to him. However, In many other cases when a male cannot show himself to be a main figure of some sort of pathetic trend, she will then seek that attraction in him through his authority instead because his authority parallels how trends are authoritative in a culture.

Rationalism is not sexy. This is how it is deemed as “awkward” in parties: “Why isn’t that guy rolling in shit like pigs just like us?”, they might whisper amongst each other.

What these filthy animals fail to realize is that many males, particularly the more intelligent ones, after developing anxiety disorders by becoming depressed from excessive cortisol levels & having diminished oxytocin hormonal levels, actually lose the confidence that these females crave from males when such males receive inconsistencies & discover what females want. Then the cycle of mistaking effect for causation continues.

Females hate being in situations of minimal dynamics. Females often need to assess males so that it is easy for them to ordain such males. They hate logical males because these types are too complex for females to fit into their simplistic categories. & this is partly how they call logical males to be “too nice”. These males can not placate their pathetic inferiority complexes. Case: Walking into a clothing store, females will grope many items & just waste time because they constantly need entertainment, & that’ how their boredom places labels of “intensity”, with very little understanding of the actual politics, on any male who can replace their dominance on others . Males will just walk in, buy what they want, & then leave.

I’ve been in past relationships of females initially being attracted to me because I was firstly perceived to be “exotic”/”rebellious” or a “bad boy” – for the wrong reasons, but when they discovered that I was actually this “boring” guy with conservations & morals, they no longer wanted me. They project on to me by aesthetics what they sexually desire, then after discovering that I’m not what they desire, they get angry at me for it.

What’s sad is that males take it as advice to be what they want.

It would be a rare scenario where males say “My ex loved me, but she let me walk all over her so I had to move on to someone who put me in my place”. Most males don’t desire someone to police their behavior, nor create tests for that desire. Males have a better capability for self reflection that females lack. What females generally have is narcissism, which is often mistaken for “introspection”. It’s inconsiderate that they would desire for males to reinforce this policing with little regard for how tiresome it could be for the other.

I Do Wanna go Back 50 Years and Do It Over.

me_pet_sounds_paper_backsI was discussing with my coworker whether, if it were 50 years ago, I would be into the music of the day.  My guess is most likely not.  I would imagine that a 32 year old version of me back in 1966 would have been married with a couple of kids, working a standard or above standard job, living in a nice house and buying my kids the paperback books you see me holding in the picture.  After all, if we’re going by what the culture was like back then, I probably would have outgrown “popular music” by, I dunno, 1952 at age 18 and focused entirely on either getting a career or going to college, back when having a college degree actually mattered.  The only reason I’m bringing all of this up is because I saw a Facebook post reminding me that the legendary Beach Boys album, Pet Sounds, was released 50 years ago, and it got me thinking about how art, culture and society have evolved/devolved in half a century.  So, let’s start with the topic I know the most about.

1966 is probably the most important year for rock ‘n’ roll.  The album took precedence over the single, and many of the most important albums were released that year.  Rock showed the establishment that it too could be taken seriously as a form of art.  Older, established bands were no longer content to just entertain an audience; now they were officially “artists.”

On Revolver the Beatles experimented with Eastern, Sitar sounds (“Love You To”) and backwards, psychedelic tape effects (“Tomorrow Never Knows”). On Aftermath, the Rolling Stones threw in baroque arrangements into “Lady Jane” and also used Eastern influences on both “Paint It Black” and “Mother’s Little Helper” – the former on the American version of Aftermath, and the latter on the European version.  And on their album, A Quick One, the Who performed the first “rock opera” (nine minute “A Quick One While He’s Away”).  On top of that, there were all of these wonderful, unique and creative albums from new bands; Black Monk Time by the Monks, The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators by the 13th Floor Elevators, Freak Out! by Frank Zappa and his Mothers of Invention and both The Seeds and A Web of Sound by the Seeds, just to name a few.

One could say it was a gosh darned renaissance in pop music!  New ideas, new drugs, new open sexuality – the world was throwing off the shackles of the previous generation.  However, one album stands out among all of the other classics of ’66 for what sounds like a lamentation of all this “moving forward” that society was doing.  Okay, you could talk about how the Kinks sang about the loss of the old way of life to modernity, but for the sake of argument and because they’re British, let’s ignore them and focus on the album I’m holding in the picture: Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys.

If I’m not mistaken, most hipster people don’t think much of the Beach Boys because the group’s early surfin’, cruisin’, drag racin’ and tail chasin’ (okay, that last one was a bit of an exaggeration since their songs are pretty wholesome) world view reflected a macho, retrograde, capitalist, consumerist and all American culture that these days is all but a quaint memory.  That’s probably why the only Beach Boys album any of them seem to talk about is Pet Sounds.  And, I’m assuming that has more to do with Mike Love’s experimentation with orchestral flourishes, than what the group was singing about.  We want to turn on, tune in and drop out, and you’re singing songs about marriage?

When did the 60s actually start?  Well, obviously 1960, but 1960 was really no different than 1959.  We didn’t see any real spike in cultural upheaval until a few years after that.  As far as I’m concerned, the 1960s that Dennis Hopper says you weren’t in if you claim to remember it didn’t really begin until 1966.  Sure Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 put a damper on America’s soul, the 1964 Civil Rights Act rearranged how private businesses were allowed to operate, the 1965 Hart-Celler act fundamentally changed the American demographic from majority white to god knows what from god knows where and the 1965 Watts Riots led to the start of white flight from major cities to their neighboring suburbs, but a couple performances by some British rock bands on American TV in 1964 and 1965 didn’t exactly represent a rapidly shifting cultural zeitgeist as many would like to think.  In fact, if the clip that I saw of a couple of young people complaining about Jim Morrison’s onstage social/political rants are any indication, there were plenty of people from that era who viewed mainstream rock and pop music as nothing more than entertainment.

The true cultural shift began to manifest in about 1966.  Hollywood studios “broke the code” by releasing movies like Mike Nichols’ Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, with blatant references to “humping”, and the Michelangelo Antonioni film Blow-Up, which has a bunch of nudity in it because, like, nudity is cool.  Anton LaVey launched his Church of Satan because traditional religions are for the birds.  Bra-burning feminists hit the scene.  Black Panthers began to patrol the streets of major cities.  The kids were being told to not trust anyone over 30.  Hair was getting longer, sex was getting looser, movies were getting smuttier, music was getting druggier and American society was embroiled in one of the biggest cultural wars it had ever faced since, I dunno, the Civil War?

angry_bikersAnd so, it’s 50 years later.  I’m a HUGE fan of pop-cultural ephemera, music, films, magazines and books from the 60s.  I wonder if it’s possible for all of this stuff to exist if the culture hadn’t taken such a massive nose dive; would there even all these cool sexploitation films and biker films and John Waters films and Satanic films and women in prison films and excessively violent Spaghetti Westerns if there wasn’t a society to reflect off of?  Granted, the gangster and crime pictures of the 30s through the 50s were already reflecting the darker side of American culture, and of course there were horror movies.  Companies like American International made sensational movies like Teenage DollThe Wild Angels and The Trip so that the average Joe could experience “the other side” without having to join a gang, get into a violent brawl or drop a hit of acid himself.

When all was said and done, the majority of people didn’t participate in the lunacy and cultural degeneracy of the 1960s; they worked jobs, got married and had kids.  The ones that were part of the counterculture either became burnouts or were absorbed into academia and various parts of government, taking their views with them and forcing them onto future generations.

I’m sure many of the geriatric counterculture types who were alive in the 60s would never have guessed that we would have men in women’s clothing trying to use women’s restrooms or girls excusing their sluttiness with such clever labels as “polyamerous.”  The craziest yippie, hippie, degenerate freak of the 60s never would have even considered gay marriage a possibility.  Many “freaks” I talk to, who were around back then, still love the music, but now have way more conservative views.  Yes, these were degenerate freaks; but they were mostly heterosexual, degenerate freaks.

And so we have the first verse of “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”, the opening track on Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys:

wouldn’t it be nice if we were older
then we wouldn’t have to wait so long
and wouldn’t it be nice to live together
in the kind of world where we belong
you know it’s going to make it that much better
when we could say good night and stay together

Can you imagine such an antiquated notion as asking someone to marry you marketed to the kids of today?  Forget the kids; what about the 36 year old sluts who are getting pumped and dumped for the umpteenth time by some guy in his early 30s, who doesn’t want to commit to an over the hill broad that still thinks of herself as top shelf in the sexual market place?

Jesus, don’t even bother with these lines:

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do
We could be married
And then we’d be happy

Praying?!  Why that sounds like something those stupid Christians do!  Pet Sounds came out 50 years ago right about the time the culture was “changing.”  We’re now seeing a mirror image of the 1960s.  The hippies, radical feminists and Black Panthers have been replaced by Occupy Wall Street, “free the nipple” feminists and Black Lives Matter thugs, and, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump, the growing discontent of the American worker, the trend in single motherhood, increasing inner city crime, the desire to end trade agreements, overbearing political correctness and a stronger nationalist sentiment, I have a feeling the next generation may be clamoring  for a reversal of 50 years of “progress.”

Stuff Every Woman in a Refrigerator or the “Who Gives a Shit?” Effect

guardsman_of_gorWhen I sit down to watch a movie, especially one directed by Jess Franco, who is known for such sleazy, Eurotrash classics as Vampyros Lesbos and Marquis de Sade’s Justine, the VERY first thing I ask myself is, “DOES THIS PASS THE BECHDEL TEST??!!”

I have to sadly conclude that there is absolutely no way I can find a feminist justification for watching either of these movies, or practically any film I watch.  Unless you count The Captive Female, where the sassy, red-headed hooker uses her feminine wiles to escape from the demented Matthew and his claw hand.

Similarly, when a couple of my buddies and I got out the popcorn and sat down to watch our Saturday night marathon of Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will and Jud Suss, I had to admit that it was damn near impossible to find a single egalitarian messages in any of these films.  Don’t get me wrong; D.W. Griffith’s film is a masterpiece in early film making, while the feminist side of me wants to revere Leni Riefenstahl —

Okay, if you’re a modestly cultured person, you got what I was doing; I was trying to apply modern day, Social Justice Warrior critiques to movies that are completely devoid of any value we would find acceptable in our modern, politically correct world.  OBVIOUSLY you wouldn’t look for egalitarian messages in Birth of a Nation – that’s the 1915 film where the KKK are the good guys and lynch a black man, who is played by a white man, after he attempts to rape Lillian Gish – or in Triumph of the Will, which is Riefenstahl’s filmed account of the Nuremberg rally or Jud Suss, a nasty anti-Jew propaganda film from Veit Harlan, who, after the fall of the Reich, went on to direct the anti-gay film, The Third Sex.  Nor would you attempt to see if anything by that Spanish pervert Jess Franco passes the Bechdel Test.  I was using hyperbole to make what should be a pretty obvious point.

And what point is that you ask?

Hold your horses, and this will all make sense.  I just watched Davis Aurini’s brilliant documentary Immersed in Subversion: Control the Culture, Control the Man, in which Aurini discusses video game “critic” Anita Sarkeesian and her narcissistic attempt to censor speech and control the culture.  In the film, Aurini points out several inconsistencies in Sarkeesian’s attacks on video games.  I am not a gamer; my knowledge of video games stops in the early-mid 90s with Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo, so I haven’t played, nor care to play any of the games he’s talking about.

But, in the video, he debunks her claim that video games are sexist by pointing out that the part where you get to beat the strippers to death and drag their bodies around is only one of many possibilities, or the fact that games that feature wicked hot women in stripper costumes and have double D knockers and perfectly sculpted asses aren’t sexist because the women have parity with men who are sculpted like Greek gods.  I say, “who gives a shit one way or another?”

I don’t care if EVERY video game involves some guy saving some girl from some from of peril.  It’s a goddamn video game for crying out loud!  If people get bored of Big Guns McGillicuddy going around blasting people and saving some “damsel in distress”, then some enterprising developer will come up with some other game that has a different story.  Just the fact that he’s trying to explain why these games are “evenly balanced” is such a futile waste of time in my opinion.

That would be like me trying to explain how the 70s hard rock that I love so much isn’t sexist because, even though the Sweet song “Someone Else Will” has the lyric “if you don’t go down on us, someone else will”, it’s only speaking to a specific person and not to the whole female gender.  I could then use Alice Cooper’s “Only Women Bleed” as an example of a song which shows sympathy for women, but what would be the point?  Who am I trying to convince and for what purpose?

The whole argument reminds of me of some of the fantasy books I read; in Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories, the Shemites all have hooked noses and are only trustworthy when they’ve got something to gain from other races, while the dark skin races are all primitive.  Conan also has the predilection for ravishing/raping women.  H.P. Lovecraft repeatedly talked about his hatred for anyone who wasn’t white.  Edgar Rice Burrough’s John Carter character shoots “savages” at the beginning of A Princess of Mars before being sent to Barsoom and attempting to interact with barbaric, non-white races.  What about Sax Rohmer’s “yellow peril”, Fu Manchu?  Shouldn’t the band Fu Manchu be yelled at for naming themselves after a character who most people would find to be an offensive stereotype of Asians?

I remember even thinking this ten years ago when I sat down with my buddy Nate and asked him why black people in his film class get so damn uptight about Birth of a Nation.  He looked at me like I was being the most insensitive jerk in the world and said, “because some of them are black?”  And I thought, “but they do realize the film was made a century ago and that’s the way people thought back then, right?”  Many soldiers who fought during the Civil War were probably still alive when that film came out, and to them, a lot of what is in that movie holds true. Surely they can’t be that sensitive where they can’t put the film in its proper context?  Geez, I wonder how they’d feel about the sympathetic treatment of the Confederate side in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!  Trigger warning!

And it got me thinking about how, in 2016, universities are a joke and how it’s impossible to look at a piece of art, literature or music objectively anymore.  Somehow the piece has to be explained through a “minority” or “female” perpsective, or someone has to be criticized for having a view that isn’t in complete accordance with what is politically acceptable today.  We have to watch modern films and make sure they pass the Bechdel test, or we have to bitch about how too many women are being stuffed into refrigerators.

Art is not social justice.  If you’re sick of women being stuffed into refrigerators, then make a story where the women are stuffed into microwaves.  If you’re sick of the “male dominated” comic book, video game or film cultures, then make your own games with your own stories.

One thing I AM grateful for is that 99.9999999% of white power bands suck ding dongs, so I don’t have to pretend to feel guilty listening to them.  Well, except for this one.  Objectively speaking, Hail the New Dawn by Skrewdriver really blows.  Seriously, listen to it!  He sounds like he has a frog in his throat, the production is total shit and the guitars aren’t loud enough!  Hmm, on second thought, it’s actually kinda catchy…

I do enjoy a good Wagner score though, and I like early Disney films, and I enjoy the F.W. Murnau film The Last Laugh, which stars Emil Jannings, who became a Nazi.

So, I say go ahead, put on I Spit on Your Grave, The Bad Bunch or S.S. Hell Camp, watch women get beaten and raped, hear honkies and niggers yelling racial slurs while swinging chains at each or watch some big-bossommed Brunhilda conduct grizzly experiments on hapless victims in a Nazi torture camp, because, of all the things I look for in a movie, social responsibility just isn’t one of them.

Also, to a man, I still have no fuckin’ idea what a “trope” is.  Though I do enjoy troping women when I’m at the bar.

Stop Trying to Normalize Freakish Behavior

glen_or_glenda_dvdBack in I think 1998, Rob Halford, the singer of Judas Priest, proudly declared to the world that he is a gay man.  All I thought at the time was, “if a gay man had been on their 1997 album Jugulator, it might not have been such a pile of horse shit” and “man, why is he trying to appeal to NIN/Marilyn Manson fans with his band Two and their equally lousy album Voyeurs?”  In fact, I was actually kind of intrigued by his admission and went excavating the Priest back catalog for any clues to his homosexuality.

And hoo boy, if people didn’t at least get some hints, then they just weren’t paying attention.  I didn’t really think too deeply into their lyrics at the time since most of them are about monsters and machines that take over the world.  But they also have songs like “Raw Deal”, which talks about New York’s gay mecca fire island, “All the Way”, which, barring the fact that it’s on an album called Point of Entry, all but blatantly describes an S&M scenario between two men and “Jawbreaker”, which, in case ya did not know, is gay slang for a giant cock.  I can’t help but be amused every time I hear Rob Halford melodramatically sing the lyrics to “Jawbreaker”, especially when I recently saw Priest live and watched all the metal bros singing along to it.

Yep, my friend Jared and I did not care that Rob Halford was gay.  We were actually taken aback when we were hanging outside Harpos and some biker type dude was going on and on about how he’ll never listen to Judas Priest again because Halford is a fag.  When we saw him live, the venue was packed and people didn’t view Rob Halford as a fag; they viewed him as ROB FUCKIN’ HALFORD OF JUDAS PRIEST.

My point is, at the time, we were (and still are) accepting of gays.  We were so accepting, in fact, that, when we worked at Burgerking between the ages of 15 and 18, we would fill the downtime with copious amounts of ass slapping, air humping, limp wrist gestures and typically effeminate gay speak.  Why?  Because it’s funny.  Because stereotypical gay people are funny.  I even knew some women and gays who thought it was cool that we were so comfortable with ourselves that we could act gay and not worry how others would perceive us.  After all, we aren’t homophobic.

What does “homophobia” even mean?  Well, if a phobia is an irrational fear, then it’s an irrational fear of homos; and I assume they don’t mean homo sapiens.  How can you be afraid of gays?  Afraid of what?  That they’ll rob or kill you?  I guess “homophobia” implies that, when some people see gays, they’re afraid that it might trigger their inner gay, so they attack gays to suppress any gay they might have.  That’s the best way I understand it, and it is sad that people are sometimes victims of violent crimes because of being gay.  But be honest; is anti-gay crime a nationwide epidemic?

So, anyway, as it turned out, what Jared and I were doing when we worked at Burgerking, acting like a couple flaming homos, wasn’t funny, progressive or accepting; it was blatant acts of hate.  When I went to college and hung around the radio station, I didn’t realize that the zeitgeist had changed.  Here I am thinking, “I have plenty of gay friends.  I support the legal union of two gay adults to obtain the same tax exemptions as straight people.  Clearly I’m not homophobic”  Turns out that, at least according to my former friend Kyle, a zero fun, straight edge, hardcore, vegan type, my “making fun” of gay people is a form of “othering” them.

Shortly after I learned about the term LGBT (later LGBTQ, and later even more letters).  Ah, the wonderful things you learn in college between the classes that will actually help you secure a good future.  So what exactly do these initials, which represent a so called “oppressed” group, mean?  Let’s break it down:

L is for lesbian.  A lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women.  In a lesbian relationship, one woman plays the female role and the other is, I guess, the male of the relationship, and thus takes on more masculine mannerisms.  Okay, fine.  I actually met a lesbian couple at my friend Brian’s wedding.  The “woman” of the relationship was actually REALLY pretty, and I wouldn’t have guessed she was a lesbian unless she told me.  She was in her late 30s, but looked like she was in her late 20s.  The “male” of the relationship dressed like Annie Lennox.  Initially I thought she was one of the servers since she dressed in what looked like an androgynous catering outfit, but nope, she was part of the couple.  Also, they told me they can’t stand Muslims because Muslims think it’s cool to throw them off of roofs, and they don’t want to be thrown off of roofs.

Next we have G.  If my gaydar is correct, the G stands for “gay”, which sixty years ago meant happy.  The umbrella definition of gay could include women who are attracted to other women, but is typically reserved for men who are attracted to other men.  Like in the lesbian relationship, one man takes the male role, and the other is the “woman.”  The “man” of the relationship is in fact typically a normal dude and, for the life of me, there are people who I never would have guessed were gay until they told me; like my friend Tim, who is big, gumpy and weird looking, and could possibly be autistic.  The “female” side of the gay equation is of course overly effeminate, lisping and fashion obsessed; the really scrawny ones are called “twinks” if I’m not mistaken.  Then there’s the category of “bears”, who, from my understanding, are just big, burly dudes, who happen to be gay.

Then we have B, which, if I’m good at the deduction game, means bisexual.  Now, typically I find it VERY rare to find a true bisexual man, and I’m often dubious of the ones who say they are, but, whatevs.  The same goes for women; I usually find that, when they’re bi, they’re just bitter about a relationship and have “given up on men”, or they’re slutty college girls just “trying things out.”  My ex Holly told me she’s not bi at all, that she’s attracted to men, and that’s it.  On the other hand, another girl I briefly dated, Nikki, vividly described a situation where she scissored with her roommate while high on coke, and claims to have came four times during the experience.  The visual of her nicely developed pair-shaped body with that big ass and those enormous, football-like boobs, being enthralled in a leg locked, vagina to vagina rubbing session possibly with someone who has presumably the same body contours has kept me warm on many a lonely night.  So, either she was turned on by the thrill of doing something “naughty” or she legitimately found her roommate attractive.  Either way, phew, wow.

Fourth and no longer last, we have T for “transgender”?  What the fuck is “transgender”?  Does it mean transvestite like Edward D. Wood Jr., who liked to dress in his wife’s clothes, and the cross dresser in The Crying Game?  Does it mean transexual, like legendary punk rock singer Wayne Country, who became Jayne Country by having his dick chopped off and replaced with a vagina?  Does that mean County went from being a gay man to a straight woman?  I don’t fuckin’ know.  It’s so confusing these days with people inventing all kinds of weird labels for themselves.  And furthermore, I’m still stumped as to what the T has to do with the L, G or B.  Many gays and lesbians have now turned their back on the trans community.  After all, how does who you want to fuck have anything to do with what gender you want to be?

For some reason, they threw Q onto the end of that little string of initials, but I have no idea how Q differentiates in any way from L, G or half of B.

I will say this though; as much as I don’t care what other people do, I will never consider a man, who surgically had his penis removed and replaced with a phony vagina, a woman.  And, unless they’re lying so they seem more “progressive”, I don’t know a single straight man who would be okay with having slept with a “woman” who was born a man.  I also find it pretty difficult to believe that a person couldn’t spot a “trans” (vestite? sexual? gender?) prior to engaging in sex, because this…

tran_kid

…will never be this…

hot_asian_woman_with_big_thighs

The only way I’d EVER mistake the gorgeous wide hips, thick thighs and big boobs of a woman for the bony, scrawny, shape of a man, whose boobs were implanted, regardless of what hangs between his/her legs, is if I was too drunk to fuck in the first place.

Is any of what I’m saying wrongheaded or bigoted?  If you are a man who is attracted to other men or you’re a woman who is attracted to other women, or you’re somehow attracted to both, that’s okay!  I do not care.  However, how you ACT in public still determines how normal you are.  If you participate in gay pride events, where you wear a jockstrap and a cowboy hat and simulate sexual acts, you are being weird.  You are trying to make people uncomfortable.  You are deliberately transgressing.  If you’re a MAN and you surgically become a WOMAN, you are also being weird.  When my buddies and I would go to restrooms that have several stalls and deliberately all line up behind one stall and engage in conversation with the person who was pissing, we were also transgressing and being weird.  The difference is that we aren’t trying to make people accept this as normal behavior.

I LIKE weird.  After all, I’m a John Waters fan for crying out loud.  It was Waters who said, “coming out is so square.”  And weird is okay for some people.  It IS amusing to make people uncomfortable within reason.  Taking a bro-dude to a gay bar and watching him freak out is funny.  Having a man use the women’s restroom with little girls around them is not funny.  Parading around in public, swinging phallic objects with little kids around is not funny or cool.  Trying to make the populace conform to the narcissistic wishes of 0.03% of the population by changing bathroom rules so a man who dresses like a woman can use the women’s restroom is not funny; it’s deadly serious and not cool at all.  If parents don’t want their kids around that, you have to respect that.

I joke about organizing a gay pride parade in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit that has a heavy Muslim population.  THAT would definitely test their tolerance for what they perceive to be weird and deviant, wouldn’t it?  But you would never try to force them to accept homosexuality or the transgender way of life?  So, why would you try to force it on everybody else?  Why are you trying to normalize weird behavior?  Can’t you just accept that you’re weird and be happy with yourself?

We currently live in a messed up world, where teens who are going through a phase and decide they’ve been “misgendered”, get support from equally messed up weirdos in online groups like tumblr and reddit.  Unfortunately, if parents don’t step in and curtail this behavior, it could lead to irreparable life choices.  I showed my buddy a thing called “otherkin”, where kids pretend to be of the “wrong species”, and I asked him whether he would have a serious discussion with his son if he ever found out he were involved in this bizarre subculture; he said he most certainly would.  Unfortunately he didn’t pick up on the parallel I was attempting to draw with the “transgender” issue.

Oh well, I guess I don’t have to worry about it since I’m not a parent.