Prog Rock So White, So What?

me_josh_ian_procol_harumThe cultural apparatchiks can’t figure out if it’s worse for white people to “culturally appropriate” the styles, customs, and musics from various racial and ethnic groups or to avoid them. If you do the former, you’re diluting them with your lack of understanding and context, and thus you’re racist. If you do the latter, you’re showing in-group preference, and thus you’re racist.

So, when the very Anglo Saxon sounding James Parker writes for The Atlantic that “prog rock is the whitest music ever”, what is his point, other than he doesn’t like progressive rock very much? He begins by talking about a prog rock themed cruise that’s taking off from the port of Miami.

“We are the most uncool people in Miami.” So begins, promisingly enough, David Weigel’s The Show That Never Ends: The Rise and Fall of Prog Rock. Weigel, along with 3,000 fellow Yes-heads, Rush-oids, Tull freaks, and votaries of King Crimson—cultural underdogs all, twitching and grimacing with revenge-of-the-nerds excitement—is at the port of Miami, about to embark on a five-day progressive-rock-themed cruise: a floating orgy of some of the most despised music ever produced by long-haired white men.

Despised by who exactly? He goes on:

Do you like prog rock, the extravagantly conceptual and wildly technical post-psychedelic subgenre that ruled the world for about 30 seconds in the early 1970s before being torn to pieces by the starving street dogs of punk rock?

Absolutely. Blame Hawkwind, Can, and Van der Graaf Generator for that. I suppose you could also blame Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath if you think they scrape against the progressive rock genre; Sabbath DID hire Rick Wakeman to play keyboards on Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath, and the album has the weird sounding, Moog filled “Who Are You?” on it, while Alice Cooper blatantly said that he and his early band wrote the eight minute, multi-part epic “Halo of Flies” to impress the prog crowd. But you know who you should REALLY blame? Johnny Rotten. That’s right, the former Sex Pistol, who reverted back to John Lydon when he launched Public Image Ltd. in 1978, talked about how his favorite pre-1975 bands were all of the above mentioned. Hawkwind, the band Lemmy was in before he started Motörhead, was my gateway drug into all things nerdy and progressive. Their songs are long and jammy like progressive rock, but driving and aggressive like punk rock or metal; check out “Brainstorm” if you wanna hear thirteen straight minutes of spacey, Stooges-style, proto-punk aggression.

As anyone with a cursory knowledge of rock history knows, John Lydon was spotted in the Summer of 1975 walking down a London street wearing an “I Hate Pink Floyd” t-shirt, which lead to his landing the Pistols gig. But, if he HATED Pink Floyd (in actuality, he doesn’t), and Hawkwind COVERED Pink Floyd – “Cymbaline” – then that’s a bloody contradiction, innit? On top of THAT, Lydon openly and often talks about how he loves the very progressive Van der Graaf Generator. Listen to Peter Hamill’s singing, such as in the song “Killer”, and you know where post-Pistols John Lydon got his caterwauling vocal style from.

And so, I realized it wasn’t 1977 anymore, and my punk/prog tribalism was torpedoed FOREVER!!! There isn’t THAT big of a leap from Sabbath to the King Crimson track “21st Century Schizoid Man”, with its heavy metal riff and bonkers jam out section. And, although Crimson use a saxophone in “Schizoid Man”, Hawkwind, X-Ray Spex, and the Butthole Surfers incorporate saxophone into their sound as well. Pretty soon, I was aurally scarfing down the music of Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Gentle Giant, Gong, Nektar, Arthur Brown’s Kingdom Come, Greenslade, Egg, Kayak, Fuzzy Duck, and Atomic Rooster, along with German progressive rock acts like Eloy and Birth Control – which shouldn’t be mistaken for kraut rock bands like Can, Kraftwerk, Neu!, Faust, Amon Duul 2, Cosmic Jokers and Tangerine Dream – Italian bands like Goblin, Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso, New Trolls, Area, Maxophone, and Premiata Forneria Marconi, and of course the extremely weird French band Magma. I also really dig the fantasy art of Roger Dean, which decorates the album sleeves of Yes, Uriah Heep, Budgie, and Osibisa. That’s right, James Parker, I listen to Osibisa, an all black group of African expatriates! How’s THAT for virtue signalling?!

So, to answer your original question, yes, I like prog rock. But go on…

Do you like the proggers, with their terrible pampered proficiency, their priestly robes, and their air—once they get behind their instruments—of an inverted, almost abscessed Englishness? I don’t.

You don’t say…

At least, I think I don’t. I like Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which is a kind of wonderful satirical compression of prog rock, a fast-forward operetta with goofy existentialist trappings and a heavy-metal blowout in the middle; I like the bit of Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells that became the theme music for The Exorcist.

Actually, Mr. Parker, the Jethro Tull album Thick as a Brick is a spoof of self-important progressive rock conceits; that’s the album with the newspaper sleeve, which features a phony story about a nine year old boy, who wrote a poem that the Jethro Tull members thought was so brilliant, they used it as the lyrics for their album. In case you couldn’t guess, that was a joke. But you ARE right; “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a very good song, if a bit overplayed, and I like Tubular Bells as well.

Hated, dated, sonically superannuated … One could enjoy prog ironically, I suppose—listen to it with a drooping and decadent ear, getting off on the fabulous obsolescence, etc.

“Hated, dated, sonically superannuated”? What, are you Bob Dylan now?

Prog as a wild chamber of experimentation, a sci-fi trespass across the limits of popular music, driving clear of fashion and orbiting the Earth forever. Awesome. The problem comes, for me, when I actually listen to the stuff. Is it not a form of aesthetic dissipation to praise something for its ambition and its bold idiosyncrasy when that something is, objectively speaking, crap?

Okay, so you don’t like it. Nobody’s forcing you to listen to it, but when exactly did musical taste become “objective”?

Gentle Giant, in 1972, took a poem from Knots, a book by the great heretic psychiatrist R. D. Laing, and turned it into an intricate, multivoice chant: It hurts him to think that she is / hurting her by him being hurt to think / that she thinks he is hurt by making her / feel guilty at hurting him by her thinking / she wants him to want her. The idea is great on paper. But listen to the song, to its scurrying, fidgety instrumentation, its fussy avoidance of anything like a melody. It is not enjoyable. At all. Magma, the French prog band, invented not only its own L. Ron Hubbard–style cosmic origin story but its own language (Kobaïan, which reads like a sequence of Gothic expletives: Nebëhr gudahttKöhntarkösz). Again, very creative. But run, oh run, from the music.

Blah, blah, blah… Gentle Giant is actually VERY enjoyable. In fact Sherman Hemsley LOVES ’em, and you’re not going to argue with George Jefferson, are you?! More on point; Magma IS a very weird band. But their weirdness is fun, jackass. I remember driving around with my friend in our little burg near Detroit, blasting Mëkanïk Dëstruktïẁ Kömmandöh just to annoy people.

Eventually James “so Anglo Saxon it hurts” Parker attempts at cycling the piece away from his personal bias and back to what is allegedly the point of the article.

“We’re a European group,” declared the lead singer of proto-proggers The Nice in 1969, “so we’re improvising on European structures … We’re not American Negros, so we can’t really improvise and feel the way they can.” Indeed. Thus did prog divorce itself from the blues, take flight into the neoclassical, and become the whitest music ever.

Well, ACTUALLY, that’s not entirely true, and even if it was, who cares? Soft Machine (why didn’t I mention them above?) incorporated jazz into their sound, and if Jethro Tull, King Crimson, and Uriah Heep were as metal as they were progressive, then there’s no way in hell they abandoned blues. On top of that, Deep Purple, who I guess also straddles the fence between early heavy metal and progressive rock, started playing goddamn soul music on albums like Burn and Stormbringer. In fact, this musical change annoyed original Deep Purple guitarist Ritchie Blackmore so much, he quit the band because of it and started Rainbow. Oh, and you have heard “Money” by Pink Floyd, haven’t you?

Parker goes on to complain about Procol Harum incorporating elements of Bach into “A Whiter Shade of Pale” and then spends the rest of the paragraph bitching about Keith Emerson making cool sounds with his Hammond organ before replacing it with the Moog synthesizer, as if that violates some sort of anti-Hammond/anti-Moog code of honor. To be fair, Keith Emerson’s playing in ELP gets a little dense, leaving little space in the music for my taste, and it turns out Vincent Crane, former keyboardist for the Crazy World of Arthur Brown and band leader for the criminally underrated Atomic Rooster (how underrated, you ask? Check out the groovy ass “Break the Ice”, and see for yourself!), agreed. So, Parker, there IS a system of checks and balances in prog. On top of that, I don’t like how Emerson, Lake and Palmer couldn’t think of a better name for their band than just their last names separated by a comma and an “and”, but hey! At least H.R. Giger did the artwork for Brain Salad Surgery. And no, “brain salad surgery” isn’t an ethereal and philosophical concept; it’s slang for a blowjob.

Fiending for technology, vivid with turbulence, he went from the Hammond organ to the freshly developed Moog synthesizer. (The proper pronunciation of Moog, I recently discovered, is “Mogue,” like “vogue.” Perhaps prog should be pronounced “progue.”)

QUIT YOUR DAY JOB RIGHT NOW AND GET ONTO A COMEDY STAGE, YOU COMEDIC GENIUS!!!

Money rained down upon the proggers.

Horrible!

Bands went on tour with orchestras in tow; Emerson, Lake & Palmer’s Greg Lake stood onstage on his own private patch of Persian rug. But prog’s doom was built in. It had to die. As a breed, the proggers were hook-averse, earworm-allergic; they disdained the tune, which is the infinitely precious sound of the universe rhyming with one’s own brain. What’s more, they showed no reverence before the sacred mystery of repetition, before its power as what the music critic Ben Ratliff called “the expansion of an idea.” Instead, like mad professors, they threw everything in there: the ideas, the complexity, the guitars with two necks, the groove-bedeviling tempo shifts. To all this, the relative crudity of punk rock was simply a biological corrective—a healing, if you like.

Bitch, bitch, bitch… I’m guessing Parker hasn’t heard “Roundabout” by Yes. It’s got plenty of that “sacred repetition”, which makes a song hooky, enjoyable, and memorable. On top of that, I wonder if Parker has heard prog/punk hybrid groups like Nomeansno or the Jesus Lizard, who combined “the groove-bedeviling tempo shifts” with “the relative crudity of punk rock.” Though, he’s got a point; neither of those bands ever used dual neck guitars.

Also, economics intervened. In 1979, as Weigel explains, record sales declined 20 percent in Britain and 11 percent in the United States, and there was a corresponding crash in the inclination of labels to indulge their progged-out artistes. No more disappearing into the countryside for two years to make an album. Now you had to compete in the singles market.

So, music has to sell a lot of records for you to like it? But, punk rock records NEVER sold as much as progressive rock albums… unless we’re talking about Nirvana, the Offspring, and Green Day, and I know we’re not, so what’s your point?

Some startling adaptations did occur. King Crimson’s Robert Fripp achieved a furious pop relevance by, as he described it, “spraying burning guitar all over David Bowie’s album”—the album in question being 1980’s Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps).

Okay first all, Fripp had already played some fuzzed out licks on the Brian Eno album Here Come the Warm Jets, which, like a Bowie album, is full of succinct and catchy pop rock tunes, only better (yeah, Eno is better than Bowie, blow me.). But, if Parker wants to talk about “adaptations”, then he fails to mention the 1981 King Crimson album Discipline, in which Fripp and his group absorbed the neurotic, jittery, and deliberately stilted new wave influence of David Byrne, along with the Talking Heads’ synthetic businessman attire. Check out their Fridays performance of “Elephant Talk” if you don’t believe me! It’s AWESOME. Now, I’m no Fripp apologist; King Crimson have done their share of unlistenable, pretentious crap (Lizard, Islands), but when they nail it, hoo boy, do they nail it (In the Court of the Crimson King, Red, Larks’ Tongues in AspicDiscipline, The ConstruKtion of Light, The Power to Believe).

Yes hit big in 1983 with the genderless cocaine-frost of “Owner of a Lonely Heart.” And Genesis, having lost ultra-arty front man Peter Gabriel, turned out to have been incubating behind the drum kit an enormous pop star: the keening everyman Phil Collins.

Okay, yeah, “Owner of a Lonely Heart” IS a pretty catchy song, but is Parker actually praising the artless, easily listening muzak of Phil Collins OVER the weird and experimental Peter Gabriel?! Dude, if you want to LARP the 80s, coke-snorting yuppie lifestyle, there is FAR better music to do it to; for instance, Avalon by Roxy Music.

These, though, were the exceptions. The labels wanted punk, or punky pop, or new wave—anything but prog.

Except that, with the exception of a few noteworthy new wave or crossover acts like Devo, Blondie, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, the Stranglers, or the Police, punk rock never sold any records, and labels stopped wanting it after three years of watching it fail commercially. Sire only kept the Ramones on as a tax write-off.

“None of those genres,” grumbled Greg Lake, retrospectively, “had any musical or cultural or intellectual foundation … They were invented by music magazines and record companies talking together.” Fake news!

Parker can’t resist taking a swipe at Trump supporters with his “fake news” quip, as if Greg Lake said something that’s SO preposterous. EVERY genre or sub-genre is invented by the journalists and record labels, who group bands together into made-up tribes. For the journalists, it creates a sense of cultural or, I guess, sub-cultural cohesion, and for the labels, it helps sell records.

But the change was irreversible: The proggers were, at a stroke, outmoded. Which is how, to a remarkable degree, their music still sounds—noodling and time-bound, a failed mutation, an evolutionary red herring. (Bebop doesn’t sound like that. Speed metal doesn’t sound like that.)

Damn, dude… did you catch your girlfriend cheating on you while Close to the Edge was playing in the background? Speaking of Close to the Edge, have you heard the nutty first two minutes of “Close to the Edge”? If you don’t like THAT, then you know where you can stuff your “red herring.” By the way, if you’re using speed metal (or its close cousin thrash metal) as some sort of barometer with which to measure musical “evolution” by, then I’m guessing you’re not aware that most thrash kinda sounds the same. And this is coming from a fan of Motörhead, Venom, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Voivod, Exciter, Exodus, Overkill, Sodom, Kreator, Destruction, Sepultura, Onslaught, Possessed, Celtic Frost, Suicidal Tendencies, Corrosion of Conformity, and S.O.D. (but NOT Anthrax, sorry).

I feel you out there, prog-lovers, burning at my glibness. And who knows? If the great texts of prog had inscribed themselves, like The Lord of the Rings, upon my frontal lobes when they were teenage and putty-soft, I might be writing a different column altogether. But they didn’t, and I’m not. The proggers got away with murder, artistically speaking. And then, like justice, came the Ramones.

You do realize that the music of the Ramones is AS white, if not whiter, than virtually any prog band? According to Johnny Ramone’s obituary in the New York Times:

Mr. Ramone once described his guitar style as “pure, white rock ‘n’ roll, with no blues influence.”

Ten Things I Will Always Find Funny About Old Movies

dvdsA couple days ago, I once again enjoyed Howard Hawks’ 1959 western Rio Bravo, in which John Wayne plays sheriff John T. Chance, who is trying to keep a gang of thugs from running roughshod all over his dinky little town, while only having help from an alcoholic named Dude played by Dean Martin and a cripple named Stumpy played by Walter Brennan. There’s so much to like about the movie; the budding romance between an awkward and possibly virginal John T. Chance and the super hot gambling huckster babe Feathers (Angela Dickinson); Dean Martin’s struggle with the bottle; the comic relief from Stumpy; the gun slinging action; baby faced Ricky Nelson proving his chops to the older guys… what a GREAT movie, right?

Well, yeah, except if you’re not used to watching these kinds of movies. For one thing, at two hours and twenty minutes, Rio Bravo doesn’t exactly BREEZE by. On top of that, for being a western, it’s actually pretty low on action. It’s a CHARACTER driven movie, rather than one based upon a lot of fast paced gun play. Thirdly, I can picture young people finding Ricky Nelson incredibly annoying with his “yes sir”/”no sir”/”gee wiz sir” persona. Okay he doesn’t say “gee wiz”, but he does look like an overly wholesome little boy, not a rough and tumble gunslinger. And fourth, you have to suspend your disbelief since nobody bleeds when they get shot, and John Wayne gets knocked out rather easily when he trips over some wire. I’ll talk about those below, but my point is that, unless someone regularly watches old films and is used to suspending his or her disbelief, which is what audiences had to do before better special effects were created, a movie like Rio Bravo might seem dated and downright silly.

So, the other day, I read an article from LA Weekly called “Stop Laughing At Old Movies, You $@%&ing Hipsters” in which the author complained that hipsters laugh at old movies because of the hammy acting, outdated special effects and cheap set designs. While, in principle, I agree this is a stupid thing to do, especially if you shelled out the money for the movie in the first place, I also feel that the author was using the wrong movie with which to make her point.

She had attended a screening of Mario Bavo’s 1961 fantasy epic Hercules in the Haunted World, for which the theater provided a 23-piece orchestra and nine singers to accompany the soundtrack. What the fuck for? Hercules in the Haunted World is one of hundreds of Italian peplum films that came out in the late 50s though the early 60s; sword and sandal adventure epics where shaved and greased down, half naked body builders of questionable acting ability fight atop foam rocks and coliseum backdrops either in historical reenactments or purely fantastical plots against giant puppets or stop motion monsters while attempting to save unbelievably gorgeous women, who are most likely supermodels, not professional actresses. Do you see where I’m going with this? Hercules in the Haunted World is not exactly high art. So the fact that people laughed at the melodrama, cheesy special effects or the fake looking sets is NOT necessarily because of their philistinism, but possibly because the movie was legitimately funny at times.

That doesn’t mean it’s not enjoyable, but COME ON. Some things just DO NOT age well. And considering the other examples of films the author gave- 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining, The Exorcist – it make me wonder if she’s not talking out of her ass or just happened to be in the theater on a particularly bad day. So I decided to give the “hipsters” the benefit of the doubt and compile a list of items from old movies which will always evoke at least a smirk out of me, if not outright laughter. Lighten up guys, they’re just movies.

1.) When people get knocked out cold by a single, ineffectual hit

Either people were much weaker in the past, or people used to hit a lot harder, but it’s funny to note how easily people can just get knocked out in old movies. I’ve taken the kinds of hits and spills that have knocked out some of the characters in these old movies and not gotten knocked out; am I then to believe that I’m tougher than John Wayne? Case in point; Rio Bravo. The nogoodniks in the film stretch a string across the base of a stairway, John Wayne goes running down it, crashes to the ground and is out like a light. Now, that’s just ridiculous; I’ve actually drunkenly tumbled down concrete stairs and stood up unaffected. Scott Rosendall, my wheelchair confined buddy, went speeding down a flight of stairs, sat up and crawled into his awaiting wheelchair. Is wheelchair using Scott Rosendall then tougher than John Wayne? Another example that immediately comes to mind is when the monster in The Thing from Another World (1951) pushed the scientist over, and he was out cold. Seriously, the monster just pushed him, and he was out. If people got knocked out just from being pushed, then every single mosh pit would quickly turn into a mountain of unconscious bodies laying one atop another.

2.) When people get shot, but don’t bleed

Howard Hawks’ 1932 gangster classic Scarface, which stars Paul Muni as a prohibition era liquor peddling thug named Tony Comanti, was once considered one of the most violent movies of all time. But how violent is a movie where nobody expels any actual blood? We see lots of smoking guns and people clutching their chests and/or bellies either out of pain or to hide the fact that there is no actual bullet hole, but NOBODY BLEEDS!!! Now, in old fashion Westerns, this is somewhat excusable considering that cowboys were using pea shooters that often couldn’t even break skin, but for cryin’ out loud, these gangsters are using TOMMY GUNS to fill rival gangsters and the occasional innocent bystander full of holes. What’s even more problematic is that this wasn’t fully alleviated until WELL into the 60s. Although Hammer studios introduce blood and gore via Dracula (known as Horror of Dracula in North America) to the big screen and a surprising amount of it considering it came out in 1958, and Hitchcock’s Psycho had “blood” in the form of chocolate syrup going down a shower drain during the infamous Janet Leigh stabbing scene, and John Ford’s 1962 western The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance showed a tiny bit of blood dripping from John Wayne’s arm, Sergio Leone’s 1964 western A Fistful of Dollars had a scene where some banditos disguised as Union soldiers gun down a bunch of Mexican soldiers, and NONE of the Mexican soldiers bleeds a single drop. Thank God for the invention of the squib!

3.) When monsters can do nothing but push or throw people

In real life, if you pick up a little girl and throw her into your local pond, and she drowns, you’re one sadistic son of a bitch! However, if you do the same thing in a movie, such as the 1931 classic Frankenstein, you’re pretty much stretching the boundaries for the amount of violence you’re allowed to inflict on other people on a movie screen. Wait, no, there is the part where Dr. Frankenstein’s assistant Fritz is found hanging on a noose, but in general, the movie monsters couldn’t really DO anything, and you had to REALLY use your imagination. Probably the most annoying culprit is the creature in Creature from the Black Lagoon. It screeches, it stomps around, it kidnaps the girl, it pushes people and well, it pushes more people. Hey, did you see that super crazy, violent horror movie where the monster pushes people? Okay, old horror movies did have some surprisingly grizzly scenes – the human head hunting trophies in The Most Dangerous Game, the scene where Bela Lugosi skins Boris Karloff alive in The Black Cat, the scene at the end of Island of Lost Souls where the mutants revolt and mutilate Charles Laughton with surgical tools, the scene in Freaks where we see Olga after she’s been turned into a duck woman – but none of the actual violence happens ON screen; one noteworthy exception is in the 1933 British horror film The Ghoul, where a corpse played by Boris Karloff carves an ankh into his chest with a knife, and I suppose you can count the scene in King Kong when the gorilla steps on a baby’s head, but these are the exception. Do we get to SEE the werewolf in Werewolf of London or The Wolf Man mutilate people? Did we actually SEE Count Dracula suck anyone’s blood? Of course not (at least not until Terence Fisher’s 1958 adaptation of Dracula); we have to pretend these monsters are hurting people! One point of interest is that, in 1938, when Frankenstein had a theatrical re-release (on a triple bill with Dracula and Son of Kong), censors in various cities snipped the part where the monster throws the girl into the water, cutting right as the monster leans in on her and grins, unintentionally implying something far more sinister than what actually took place in the excised footage.

4.) When people replace swear words with words that you hear in kids cartoons

Imagine you’re watching a detective or gangster picture, and a character gets really angry, and he says, “you better watch it, buster!” BUSTER? Did people actually say BUSTER back then? Not even “you bastard”, but “BUSTER”?! Somehow seeing Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe or Mike Hammer or Little Ceasar Rico or Tom Powers or whoever else say “buster” just doesn’t make them seem as bad ass as they once seemed. And everyone knows that, when people think of “bad ass”, they think of an adorable, diminutive  Jewish man named Edward G. Robinson.

5.) Any black actor prior to Sidney Poitier, Woody Strode or that one guy in Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing

In the 1950s, liberal directors of the era all of a suddenly began casting blacks in relatively respectable roles. When I say blacks, I mean Sidney Poitier, Woody Strode and that one guy that was in Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing; and by “respectable”, I mean you’re supposed to feel bad for that guy – okay, fine, his name is James Edwards, and he was in such noteworthy films as Robert Wise’s The Set-Up (1949) and Samuel Fuller’s The Steel Helmet (1951) – when Timothy Carey tells him, “you’re wrong, nigger.” But before that, hooo boy… You don’t want to laugh because you’ll be looked at as an asshole, but hey, back then the roles given to black actors weren’t exactly the most empowering, talking like completely illiterate, recently freed slaves with their “suh, suh, I’s dint know, suh suh.” To be fair, Clarence Muse, the coach driver in the 1932 horror film White Zombieand I guess he was in a bunch of other stuff, like the b-picture Invisible Ghost (1941) and Fritz Lang’s Scarlet Street (1945) –  wasn’t too, how shall I say it… well, he shouts, “ZOMBIES!!!”, not “SUH! SUH! I SEES ZOMBIES, SUH!!!” However the same can’t be said for Mantan Moreland in King of the Zombies (1941) or Napoleon Simpson in  The Mummy’s Curse (1944). Oh, and check out the hilarious maid roles played by Butterfly McQueen in Gone with the Wind (1939), Mildred Pierce (1945) and many others. Quoth McQueen: “I didn’t mind playing a maid the first time, because I thought that was how you got into the business. But after I did the same thing over and over, I resented it. I didn’t mind being funny, but I didn’t like being stupid.”

6.) All white people pretending to be non-white people

I’m definitely going to hell for this one… from Walter Long as the freed slave Gus in Birth of a Nation to Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer to Boris Karloff’s portrayal of the “yellow menace” Fu Manchu in The Mask of Fu Manchu to Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s to all of the Spaniards and Italians who played Indians in John Ford’s Cheyenne Autumn… in our modern times, it’s seen as ugly, tacky, grotesque and unpleasant the way many a white actor has portrayed blacks, Asians, Americans Indians and even Arabs – Stanley Donen’s 1965 film Arabesque f’rinstance –  but the clumsy and ham-fisted delivery of these characters causes me to giggle, and to suppress your laughter in the face of political correctness is to die a slow death.

7.) When people act overly scared by stuff that isn’t very scary

Once again, to be fair, one could say this about the majority of old horror films. However, sometimes  an actor or actress’s delivery is so melodramatic, and the fear he or she evinces is so over the top when compared to what he or she is experiencing in the movie, that it becomes comical. The funniest example off the top of my head is the woman shrieking as though she’s being raped as a puppet skeleton approaches her in William Castle’s 1959 schlock fest House on Haunted Hill.

8.) People in rubber monster costumes destroying miniature cities

Everyone who knows about Godzilla knows that each Godzilla movie got progressively sillier, as Godzilla himself went from being a symbol of atomic horror to a downright adorable, lovable dinosaur that, in spite destroying entire cities, had a buddy in the form of a ten year old boy in Godzilla’s Revenge (1969). But even in the original 1954 Gojira, the one where it’s a straight up horror movie without any of the cutesiness, he’s still just a guy in a suit throwing around toy cars and walking over miniature model cities between cuts of freaked out Tokyo citizens. And let’s face it; in a lot of these films, the buildings just look like milk cartons with squares painted on them. In the case of the 1962 Swedish monster film Reptilicus, a miniature monster destroys other miniatures and, since no rear screen projection is even used to put people on screen with the monster, the film ends up looking like a glorified puppet show.

9.) Scrolling backgrounds you see from car windows

Driving sequences in old movies just don’t look very realistic, ya know?

10.) REALLY vague allusions to sex 

The film noir pot boiler Kiss Me Deadly, adapted from the Mickey Spillane novel of the same name, directed by Robert Aldrich and starring Ralph Meeker as the sleazy private dick Mike Hammer, is a remarkably modern, unflinchingly violent and hard edged film for something that came out in 1955; the torture sequence alone is rather chilling. Yet even it suffered from the censorious confines of the era in which it was conceived. It’s remarkable how intimidating both Meeker and the underworld thugs he encounters can be in spite nary a single cuss word being uttered. But what I found rather odd was how, when Hammer spoke with his lovely secretary Velda (Maxine Cooper), he asked her, “did you date him?” This is code for, “did you seduce him and/or sleep with him in order to snag him in an extramarital affair?” Now, come on, he asks her “did you date him?” She could just as easily say, “Yep! We went to the movies last night, and it was great!” At least that’s how I would have interpreted such a question. Another example of this type of vague sexual allusion is in Fritz Lang’s 1952 drama Clash by Night, in which Jerry D’Amato(Paul Douglas) finds out that his wife Mae (Barbra Stanwyck) had been cheating on him with Robert Ryan’s character Earl Pfeiffer. The line they used to reveal this was, “we spent all afternoon together.” WE SPENT ALL AFTERNOON TOGETHER?! Doing what? Playing cards? Watching TV? Picking our bellybutton lint? We’re just supposed to KNOW that when a man and a woman spend the afternoon together – not the NIGHT, mind you – they were necessarily fucking?!

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.)

How I Stopped Being an Elitist

sportsball_meme

I was a bit surprised when, in both Bernard Chapin’s video review and Matt Forney’s online review for Aaron Clarey’s latest book, The Curse of the High IQ, they mention how Clarey refers to sports entertainment as “sportsball”, a popular colloquialism that is typically used to describe sports as entertainment for the plebes.  I was under the impression a person like that would have a less cavalier attitude towards people who love sports and other popular entertainment, and that it is people on the left who judge people and call things “sportsball”; not to mention calling the people who enjoy it “dumb bros.”

Let’s get one thing straight; I may have tattoos, I may listen to weird underground music that nobody’s ever heard of, I may watch a bunch of cult films that nobody’s ever seen, but, when I go out, I would rather hang out at my local sports bar, watch sports on the TV, drink a stout, scarf down chicken wings and have said beer and wings served to me by a hot waitress, who wears black tights and a low cut tank top.  I’m over the era of my life where I want to sit in a dimly lit quasi dive populated by arty hipsters.  The fact that said bar will have a jukebox filled with the music of hip bands like Can, Captain Beefheart and the Fall DOES NOT MATTER to me AT ALL.  I literally DO NOT CARE if other people share my taste in music, and chances are these same people probably wouldn’t jam out to ZZ Top, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Ted Nugent, UFO, the Scorpions or Deep Purple, bands I like just as much as the approved “cool” bands in the post-punk, post-hardcore, kraut-rock and noisy indie rock genres.

Furthermore, I do not care if a girl I sleep with/date is a total “sportsball” loving, reality TV show watching bimbo, a military history buff who shoots guns, a tattooed metal chick with an Acid Bath patch on her denim vest or a glasses-wearing book nerd.  I’ve had all of these varieties and realized that the only things that matter to me are whether the girl is attractive and fun to be around.

So, where am I going with all of this?

I realize that, at age 31, I was smarter, cooler, funner and more accepting of people when I was in high school, than during my college years when, all of a sudden, I attempted to be an elite “cultured” person.

I was reading a negative review on Netflix of Luis Buñuel’s 1972 classic The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and, while I believe whoever reviewed the film had the wrong idea that it was explicitly meant to diss the “bourgeoisie”, I believe that a good amount of younger people who are fans of the film believe that it is in fact supposed to be Buñuel’s “fuck you” to the rich, rather than just a charming series of surreal vignettes.

Y’see, arty hipstery people are leftists and they hate the rich, the 98%, yet, at the same time, fail to realize that the average working Joe would prefer to watch a super hero, CGI-filled Hollywood blockbuster rather than The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, and that, in effect, would make the very people leftists are allegedly trying to help the target of their ridicule; in other words, the rank ‘n’ file are all idiots who would rather watch that “sportsball”, yet we want to help them.

And, sadly, though I was never a full on leftist, I had a similar view of people who I went to college with that didn’t share my tastes; people who didn’t watch countless hours of films by Godard, Truffaut, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Passolini, Bergman, Herzog and Bresson or read thousands of pages of Faulkner, Hemmingway, Doestoevsky, Proust, Joyce, Camus or Balzac or didn’t spend thousands of hours filling their ears with the sounds of Can, Kraftwerk, Neu!, Faust, Public Image Ltd., the Fall, Devo, Miles Davis, the Birthday Party, Einstürzende Neubauten or Captain Beefheart (ya know, smart people music).

On top of that, I convinced myself that I had to date “smart”, arty hipster chicks who wore the black rim glasses, had a pixie cut and wore skinny jeans and T. Rex t-shirts.  I cannot believe how hot the girl I was dating back in 2007 was.  If I could turn back the hands of time and do it over again, I would have been waaay more grateful for what the arbiters of sex had given me; a hot, blonde, boob enhanced ex-stripper, who wore a super short, denim skirt that revealed killer, worked out legs to boot.  She had the comforting personality of a stripper, the kind where she puts her hand on your knee and leans in to talk to you, sending shivers up and down your spine even though she only means it as a friendly gesture most of the time.  And she was like the ultimate bedroom slut.  Without getting too graphic, virtually nothing was off limits.  And she was ready to bang ANY time!

But, at the time, I thought I was above dating a blonde, former stripper airhead – just so you get an idea of how much of an airhead she was, she did fill-in puzzles, crosswords puzzles where they just give you the words, in her spare time and virtually knew nothing about politics, history or what was going on in the world – so, I didn’t take it seriously, just biding my time, while secretly feeling I should be with that kinda cute, nerdy looking hipster chick.

BOY, would do that over!

And then, after I left school, I began to realize how stupid all of that was.  Well not right away; what really helped me realize that I was being an elitist mangina was when I lived with Chris in Ypsilanti.  He took being an elitist, hipster, feminist pandering mangina to whole new heights that I did not think were possible.  At an age where I decided that the Bergman and Fellini can rest alongside the John Carptenter and Wes Craven, that I can be a fan of Can and Public Image Ltd. along with Slayer and Metallica, Chris, who is several years older than me, would still make snarky comments about my musical taste and try really hard to appease some of the local feminist hipster bitches.  On top of that, he would try to make me look stupid for having a sex drive!  Once he was talking about going to a “burlesque” show, a form of entertainment that allows manginas to look at naked women with impunity, since there’s an “arty” context behind it; burlesque shows have old time-y clothes, old time-y jokes, old time-y music and the women do an old time-y strip tease, rather than the pole dancing and dick riding that goes on at Deja Vu’s.  I say to Chris, “oh cool, do we get to see Amy naked?” and he responds with, “you’re into that sorta thing, aren’t you?”  Like, aren’t you, dude?  Last time I checked you are a heterosexual?  I know this because I actually played matchmaker in one case.

But, I digress.  The point is that people like that make you realize how dumb it is to look down on people who have different tastes from you.  I actually respect people who can nerd out on sports statistics the way that I can nerd out on bands or movies.  Although I made the point in an another article that, given the law of large numbers, you should judge a book by its cover, you might be surprised by what different people can show or teach you if you have an open mind and quit judging people by their tastes in music, movies, literature, women or their love for “sportsball.”