My Thoughts on Charlottesville

FIRST, let’s get the unpleasant FACTS out of the way…

Here is Scott Rosendall’s demo reel.

Also, here are a bunch of 1960s garage rock and power pop songs I like.

Isn’t Faith Goldy cute?
faith_goldy Anyway, the bottom line is that, in this world, there are the people who you don’t like and the people you do like. Your best bet is to be around those you do like and not be around those you don’t like.

Anyway, chill out, and drink some cheap liquor.
shit_magnet_shitty_vodka

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.”

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.

What Happened to the Morbid Hipster?

mondo_balordoI’m still taken aback when people act surprised when they find out that Johnny Ramone was a Republican. Make no mistake; John “Johnny Ramone” Cummings, the down-strumming, ax-slingin’ guitarist for what many consider either the first or the most influential punk rock band of all time, was an unabashed Nixon and Reagan supporter, a staunch proponent of the death penalty (“they should put it on TV for everyone to see”) and a practicing Catholic, and he wore “Kill a Commie for mommy” and “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” t-shirts under his black leather motorcycle jacket; all while playing the often copied guitar riffs that appear on every Ramones album and were played at every Ramones gig. He even admitted he played his guitar as if it were a Commie blasting machine gun.

People are even more surprised to learn what Johnny Ramone’s OTHER obsessions were; baseball cards, comic books, horror movies and serial killers. Okay, they’ll concede that, between going to church, attempting to outlaw abortion and finding ways to screw poor people, all while hypocritically preaching about family values and the need to quell inner city crime, members of the GOP CAN be fans of baseball cards, comic books and horror movies… but serial killers?! What would Sean Hannity think? Or Pat Buchanan? How does one allegedly support God, mom, apple pie and family values while obsessively reading about the exploits of Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy?

When Johnny Ramone started the Ramones, he said very plainly that the group’s formula was to write two minute songs with loud, buzz-saw guitars, catchy pop melodies and “sick” – as in morbid, twisted, weird, unusual, dark, disturbing – topics. And did they accomplish this task? Let’s see: “Glad to See You Go” is about Charles Manson; “Chainsaw” is about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre; “Today Your Love/Tomorrow the World” is about a Nazi fighter pilot “fighting for the fatherland”; “Loudmouth” is about beating up an annoying girlfriend; “53rd and 3rd” is about a young punk who makes money by sucking the cocks of middle aged businessmen on skid row (presumably Dee Dee wrote from an autobiographical perspective, but I’m guessing the part where he kills the guy is made up); “We’re a Happy Family” is about a family where “daddy’s telling lies/ baby’s eating flies/ mommy’s on pills/ baby’s got the chills… no Christmas cards to send/ daddy likes men”; “Warthog” is about “drugged out visions of Commies and queers”; “Pinhead” is about Todd Browning’s 1932 grotesque horror classic Freaks; and songs such as “Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue”, “Teenage Lobotomy”, “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment”, “Go Mental”, “I Wanna Be Sedated” and “Cretin Hop” sorta speak for themselves.

On top of that, before punk was dwarfed by Clash-inspired Marxist populism, Crass-inspired anarcho-leftism or Dead Kennedys-inspired generic liberalism and anti-capitalism, other punk bands were also into being “sick.” The Sex Pistols sang about a psycho fan of theirs who had an abortion in “Bodies” (some say “Bodies” has an anti-abortion message couched in its cuss-word filled lyrics; certainly “a gurgling, bloody mess” is something people see often in the back rooms of Planned Parenthood Clinics), not to mention calling the New York Dolls “poor little faggots” in “New York”; the Dead Boys sang about serial killer David Berkowitz in “Son of Sam”; the Vibrators sang about some kind of twisted love affair in “Nazi Baby”; Eater angrily tells some offensive bitch to get raped in the confusingly titled “Get Raped”; the Adverts sang about a guy who wakes up from eye transplant surgery to find that he’s had his eyes replaced with those of murderer Gary Gilmore in the cleverly titled – not to mention super catchy! – “Gary Gilmore’s Eyes”; and, of course, songs like “Orgasm Addict” by the Buzzcocks and “Bring on the Nubiles” by the Stranglers speak for themselves as well.

Oh, and if you’re a punk neophyte, google the lyrics to either “Bullet”, “Attitude”, “Last Caress” or “Skulls” by the Misfits. They sure as hell ain’t about saving the planet!

And JUST to belabor the point by using too many examples – because using too many examples is fun! – the Mentally Ill from Chicago have songs with titles like “Gacy’s Place”, “Stalag 13” and “Tumor Boy”, Legionnaire’s Disease from Houston have a song called “Rather See You Dead” that goes “rather see you dead/with a bullet in your head” and both the Child Molesters and the Hollywood Squares, who are both from Los Angeles, have a song about the Hillside Strangler; the former call theirs “(I’m the) Hillside Strangler”, and the latter use the shorter title “Hillside Strangler.”

All of these examples of early punk rock are part of a greater culture of morbidity, that seems to have all but been lost in the last, I dunno… ten, fifteen, twenty years? A quarter century? There are still bands who keep things twisted and weird, such as Rectal Hygienics, but they either get criticized for their “misogynistic” lyrics like in this article asking “Why Are Misogynist Lyrics ‘Entertainment’ in the Current Year?” or ignored entirely for deeply silly crap like War on Women, none of whose members, I’m thinking, have ever heard of Jim Goad.

Speaking of Jim Goad, I asked Dan, the owner of the PATAC record label, if I could use a song by one of his bands on the Sounds of Marshabaloosh segment on the Savage Hippie podcast and if he’d heard of Jim Goad. Not only had he NOT heard of Jim Goad, he explicitly said that he didn’t want any of the stuff from his label – the same label that put out an album by Anal Cunt, known for their racist humor, rape and Holocaust jokes and regular use of racial slurs – played on the evil, racist Savage Hippie podcast that’s hosted by two Jews and a Shiksa. His label also has bands with names like Fistula and Panzer Bastard and often uses blasphemous, horrific and grotesque imagery on their album covers, flyers and press releases. In other words, covering your album with inverted crosses and images of ripped out organs is acceptable, but advocating for immigration reform to keep a certain religion, known for its hatred of gays and women and whose name translates to “submission” and which has been the source of 30,000+ terror attacks since 9/11, out of the United States to keep its citizens safe, is backwards, wrong headed and racist. Did I mention that it’s also racist?

Anyway, when all four issues of Jim Goad’s ANSWER Me! zine were reprinted by Nine-Banded Books, Goad said that the new volume is bound to cause a stir considering the reaction it received a quarter of a century ago. I believe this is wishful thinking. When the Goads’ (Jim and Debbie, that is) zine made them the “top dogs of the zine world”, as he said on the Savage Hippie Podcast several months ago, hipsters, weirdos and freaks were cooler, more open minded and more into morbid and bizarre culture, and only the earliest strains of stifling and sensitive political correctness and cultural Marxism began to poke their ugly heads into the underground world. The people who will see and read the ANSWER Me! volume released in 2017 are already his fans from Takimag, The Redneck Manifesto and Shit Magnet and are primarily on the nu-right/AltRight, and there’s a good chance it won’t see the inside of a “hip”, independent book store.

However, back, during the golden era of the slacker, hidden away in small, “alternative” book stores, cult video stores and even dinky, independent record stores, were groups of people whose interests included, but were not limited to, anything that was bizarre, weird, excessively ugly or just downright unusual. These underground hipster freaks enjoyed watching cult films by Russ Meyer, Ray Dennis Steckler, Al Adamson, Barry Mahon and Herschell Gordon Lewis; they enjoyed watching Faces of Death videos and mondo films which showed primitive African tribes spearing elephants to death and Chinese villagers eating snakes; they read RE/Search magazine, the ANSWER Me! zine and anything put out by Feral House books to learn about bizarre cults with weird rituals or to look at disturbing pictures of botched surgeries and gawk at autopsies and body modifications; they read pieces by Ted Kaczynski and about various mass murderers, serial killers, cannibals and other assorted human detritus; they searched local comic shops for rare issues of the 1980s Japanese comic Rapeman; and, like me, they took their girlfriends to see Cannibal Holocaust, which has animal killing, rape and torture in it, only to have said girlfriend say, “did they at least EAT the turtle after killing it?”

And they enjoyed all of these odd pleasures without feeling guilty about or having to rationalize them. I still cringe when I remember reading about modern day film students looking at Russ Meyer films through a feminist lens. WHAT FEMINIST LENS?! Meyer was a tit-obsessed pig who filled his movies with sex and violence; sometimes the chicks got beaten up, and sometimes the chicks did the beating. And when the chicks did the beating, the guys who watched the movies still beat off to them because the chicks’ tits were huge.

And don’t you DARE consider certain customs practiced by certain tribes in far away lands to be primitive or backward, you racist bastard!

Oh well, just like punk rock, weirdo culture as a whole has all but been ruined because of the SJWs’ need to reassess everything from a politically correct, cultural Marxist angle. Nothing can just be enjoyed at face value anymore. Unfortunately these new school kids, who are obsessed with self-righteousness and virtue signalling, won’t be able to watch footage of primitive tribes spearing elephants to death, listen to songs with the word “faggot” in the lyrics or read about Nazi cults run by Jews who think Hitler is Jesus without thinking, “am I going to get yelled at for this?”. Sucks to be them.

The SavageHippie Guide to Good Trolling

20160814_141814There comes a time in your life when you have to admit the undeniable truth to yourself; I’m a troll, and I really like being a troll because trolling idiots is funny!  Now, I can’t say I’m the BEST troll because, unlike a certain Eugene Nix, who you can read about here, and to whom you can listen to David Cole, Ann Sterzinger and I talk to on our podcast here, I don’t have the planning or wherewithal to pull the caper he did.  However, what I do have, like Eugene Nix, is the ability spot the cliches, use them against people and cause these people to have a visceral reaction.  And that is fuckin’ funny.  I’m more of a real life troll, the guy who gets punched in the face when my use of absurdity is misinterpreted by people with no sense of humor.  And I admit that I TOO have been caught in this trap.

But, before we get to all that, let’s define precisely what a troll is and why a troll exists.  Being a Luddite – having found out what rickrolling is when I was rickrolled by phony balloney “libertarian” Julie Borrowsky, of all people – I came to this internet culture way late in life, so the things that I had been doing IN real life have become manifest all over the interwebs, where it seems the entire Western world spends its life even WHEN they’re out exploring the world.  Again, I just bought my first smart phone so I am learning how addicting going on the internet can be even when in public among friends and thinking that showing other people pictures of the band you’re watching or whatever cool knick knack you found fulfills a certain desire, satisfies a certain need.  I call it narcissism, and anyone who claims that they don’t have a little of it is lying.

So, anyway, in real life, I found it amusing to say over the top or odd stuff just to get a reaction.  Only later did I learn that this was “trolling.”  The major thing about saying things to get a reaction is that you need other people around who understand what you’re doing, to understand that you’re putting on a show.  But, on top of that, you’re also putting the “victim” of your charade to a test.  Is that person smart enough to “get it”?  Can you tell by that person’s reaction that he or she knows you’re kidding?  Like I said, I’ve been on the receiving end and later disappointed that I wasn’t in on the joke at the time of it happening.

For instance, when I was 16, some guy I didn’t know came up to me at a record store in a mall and asked me, “can I fuck you in the ass?”  I did a double take and kinda, trying to play cool, said something like, “um, errr, well, I don’t do that dude, but good luck…” only to have Jared fucking Yellin walk up after and say, “hey this is my friend…”  I was so disappointed by how easily I was taken in when it should have been obvious how absurd the situation was.  Maybe if we were at Fire Island, just asking a random person if you can fuck that person in the ass might seem like a normal thing to do, but, even IF this guy was trying to suss out another fag, he would most likely have a more subtle way of doing it.  In other words, I got punked!  If I HAD been more perceptive, I would have said something along the lines of “sorry, only pitcher, not catcher.”

How good you are at trolling is contingent on a few key factors.  One of them is your victim.  As funny as I found Borat to be, one can’t deny that Sasha Baren Cohen’s targets in that movie weren’t exactly positioned very high.  Yes, his trolling was effective, but let’s face it; it was cheap and obvious.  It was elite America laughing at dumb rednecks and conservative politicians.  And, to keep with the politically correct narrative, the couple of experiences with blacks in that movie resulted in him being the butt of the joke, rather than them.

On the other hand, one of my recent FB status updates, is an example of good trolling.  The only problem I see with it is that I wasted it by putting it on my FB wall, where it garnered a few laughs from some friends, while confusing others, rather than placing it in the comments section for NPR, New York Times or Huffington Post.  In attempting to laugh at the left, I had inadvertently punked my friends Scott V. and Joseph C., who actually thought they “lost another one.”  Like with the previous “can I fuck you in the ass” incident, we all get punked.  Here is what I wrote:

So sick of people and their “cause” and “effect.” Trump needs to apologize to Clinton and Obama for saying they started ISIS. ISIS just happened, okay? Just like the Nazis, every few years enemies just appear. Nobody knows from where, and really, it’s not important. They just do. What interest would Clinton and Obama have in starting ISIS? ISIS kill people, and why would our secretary of state want that? Donald Trump and ISIS are bad for the real heroes of this story, the Muslims, and I mean the real Muslims, not the violent radicals.

Now let’s break this down.  The opening sentence is so fundamentally absurd that anyone with half a brain – barring of course Scott V. and Joseph C., who have fully functioning and intelligent brains, but were just caught off guard – would see that as a dead giveaway.  I put the words “cause” and “effect” in ironic quotes to imply that those things need not be considered and that only idiots would pay attention to cause and effect.  At that point, the brain should be thinking, “haha, very funny, asshole.”

But the onslaught doesn’t end there.  I say Trump needs to apologize to Clinton and Obama for saying they started ISIS.  Most informed people realize that Clinton and Obama had something to do with starting ISIS, even if indirectly – ya know, that Iraq war thing.  So why would he need to apologize?  The only people who complained about Trump’s statements are idiot leftists who didn’t think for a second that Trump didn’t mean they literally were the heads of ISIS.  THEN, I turn up the absurdity to 11 with my statement about how “Just like the Nazis, every few years enemies just appear. Nobody knows from where, and really, it’s not important. They just do.”  REALLY?  They just do?  Like magic?  Again, should be a dead giveaway.

And then I ask, “What interest would Clinton and Obama have in starting ISIS? ISIS kill people, and why would our secretary of state want that?”  This is after Benghazi and after Clinton has been accused of being a sociopath, so again, this post is unrelenting in its obvious stupidity.

And then finally I say, “Donald Trump and ISIS are bad for the real heroes of this story, the Muslims, and I mean the real Muslims, not the violent radicals.”  Anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of Islam and that I think there is a pathology in the Muslim community, which allows them to tacitly approve terrorism while impeding any attempt to stop it by calling investigations and tougher measures “discrimination.”  There is no fathomable way the Muslims are the heroes of this or any narrative.

So, there you go; a perfect 10 in terms of trolling, something befitting the comment section at Huffington Post or New York Times, where anyone who agrees becomes a target for ridicule in my sick show.  Similarly, it functions well at a conservative blog; if someone gets the joke, that person might chime in with equally ridiculous and hyperbolic statements.  If someone does not, that person might angrily react, or as Joseph C. posted under the comment:

trolling4

The bottom line is that, to be a good troll, your post has to be able to be taken seriously by the truly stupid, seen as a joke by the intelligent and, on occasion, cause confusion among people who should know better but were caught off guard.

 

Let’s Just Call Them “Mtv.” Losers Instead Of Using The H. Word

transformer_and_chick

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

I was basically pressured into this stupid “Mtv.” thing, whatever you wish to call it, because I was subsidizing for less due to a desperate desire for social connections. I didn’t want to be a part of it. I like music, but I don’t believe in orienting a lifestyle around that sort of thing, & I  don’t believe in wasting money on alcohol, etc., just to lower my settings to speak to people of lesser intelligence. When I try to articulate this, it’s met with some sarcastic reply of “yea, cuz it’s like a gateway drug, right”. People value the stupidest things – an immature, toddler-like inability to put the “Beetle’s track” on pause. They’re much too addicted to lamer forms of entertainment, so they don’t even know how to experiment properly. This culture offers basically nothing healthy for intelligent males. I have my own standards & my own goals, but the culture prioritizes this other unproductive thing, which then causes the projection that I’m “suffering” from failing to be like them. The only thing I’m suffering from is that I have to sometimes deal with them & their influence & that I have wasted some time with it. So then they think it’s “shy”. No, it’s internalized conclusions. That’s how this stupid “Mtv.” culture is; they have delusions of being important & competent just because it’s comfortable to believe that by making their renditions of poses, & then when they’re given the reality, they deflect with “I feel sorry for you”. Regardless of whether you’re pro m.g.t.o.w., anti, neutral towards, or, like me, agree with some & don’t agree with some, the blogger Barbarossa stated it perfectly in his: ‘Survivalist Rhetoric: The Alpha Male Primitive.’ It’s such an important recording that I’m actually thinking about making a typed version of it, maybe.
I also value materialism. In my case: books are regarded as essential tools. They’re more important than utilities for a car. In fact, I’ve even economized my life to prioritize book obsession at the expense of a normal life. However, the semantics I refer to is a different problem.

Water & a female’s mind are similar – inconstant. Although females know what is right, they still have bad directions. Females’ nature is unsteady. Even if they see what they should be, they become what they shouldn’t be. Of many cases, to try to integrally capture the mind of a female, one has to adopt their impulse, & that is what has happened on the macro – adoption of feminine traits & inconsistency. Females lack integrity, largely contributing to the culture of facades. I’ve typed this before: what has resulted is a barely noticeable freak act of female emulation, so done by male performance to instinctively adapt to feminine herds, which causes its choice of amplifications, & we mistake it for an authentic masculinity.

So after I realized the “Mtv.” lifestyle for what it really is – nothing more than another rendition of “sports fans”, etc., making their feuds, propping their egos based on nothing important, & then also maintaining a limited understanding of reality based on casual observations, these losers thought that I “sold out”/quit their little groups due to an apparent – what they assumed – “inferiority complex” because that’s what happens if you’re a male not easily amused & persuaded & have the capability of being more discerning, an aspect of control, the real kind, not the fake kind that females have created of oblivious confidence.

These kids & young adults get distracted, cultivating an image from an average of ~5 weeks to ~5 months for a large portion of their lives, not even aware what’s really happening because those males have not yet learned how to weed on their own terms & hone in to get what they want from an average of ~5 minutes, ~5 hours, to ~5 days. We’ve been pretending for most of our lives. For most of us, it was a pretense we could not even recognize. We were told lies, & in turn, we perpetuated lies because those lies were what we knew.

Consider this scenario: A singer of a musical band may not be the organizer, or particularly intelligent, but, because he is the loudest & most shaky, this implies to the uncritical aesthetes that he is somehow a “leader” or the most “competent”. This is partly why I despise art & artists, even if that example might be isolated, not the technical artist who will contribute towards anatomy or engineering illustrations, but just the common artists. I’m using the word art broadly to define the various facades that females want & have set as the ultimate thing to strive for. Aesthetics leads to becoming alogical & amoral. I know males are generally much more visual creatures than females, so there’s nothing wrong with males claiming their own desires for objectification since masculine utilization helped organize civilization, but I’m referring to a problem of what is falsely called “emotional intelligence”/”social intelligence” – a burden to the advancement of real intelligence.

As Esthir Vilar said: “& so the world will go on, sinking deeper & deeper into this morass of kitsch, barbarism, & inanity called femininity.” – from ‘The Manipulated Man’, pg.: 155, [Pinter & Martin edt.] by Esthir Vilar. Great book, especially as applicable for the appropriate communication level. She had less concern with fanaticism of language – no technicalities, just quick, no vagueness, just straight truth.

The postmodern attitude is that “there is no truth, or that we can’t find it anyway.” It’s to not be concerned with facts, basically. If you want to argue that realism is “vague” – that it’s not worth it, too theoretical, & too challenging, then you undermine your argumentation because it stops you from verifying. You might as well not even argue. It’s “mysterious” because they just can’t understand it, & then they also think that one is just trying hard to seem mysterious.

When I first did a book review of the following a long time ago (completely different edited note than this one), the replies to it were how “painful”, etc., it read & sounded – completely missing the point. The reason that is is because most of what females say isn’t even real, so they think, with their mass supporters, that “truth = what sounds stylish”. It’s an inability to judge beyond tone & execution due to their means of immediate, casual, aesthetic observations – no abstractions. “Logic is delicate, sensitive, tender, sad, & maudlin”, etc.. No. it’s logical. It’s non-emotional & reduced of acting. A female pick up artist, like Kezia Noble, marketing it will tell you: “It’s not what you do or say, it’s how you say or do it,” so we have females as p(r)etty usurpers of masculinity because females have not learned to respect the totality of masculinity & masculine enterprises. When they’re not starting petty politics & drama, they’re being satiated by it in their literature & soap operas, & then go back to starting it because they haven’t received their proper order; “This guy did this weird thing with his facial expression for 3 seconds so I’m going to make a whole soap opera about it for the entire day because I need to fill that void for not having accomplished to the ratio of masculinity.” 3 seconds of “awkwardness” is inflated as 1 minute of it. They can’t be slightly bored or uncomfortable for barely 1 minute before moving to something else, & this is how females have been abusing rationalism & logic. If they start crying after you stopped the performance, don’t feel sorry. I know it’s tempting because males have that decency, but part of the reason we’ve gotten such problems is because females don’t have shame. By spending large sums of money for them, you’ve also established their control.

Here’s just an excerpt, which I have reduced to the only essentials because I’m trying to make this particular note as quickly to the point as it should be, of that one good point PAINFULLY delivered. It’s not supposed to be “stimulating”. It’s supposed to be informative, objective.:

Today postmodernism is all the rage. Around the 1960s, we entered an era characterized by a new style of life, art, & identity. While the modern world was shaped by the industrial revolution & productivity, the postmodern era is shaped by the information revolution – entertainment, the ethic of meaningless consumption, fast-changing styles, &, with that, a lack of commitment to any solid perspectives. “Postmodernism is completely indifferent to the questions of consistency & continuity. It splices genres, attitudes, styles. It relishes the blurring of juxtaposition of forms (fiction-non), stances (straight-ironic), moods (violent-comic), cultural levels (high-low) to no actual meaning. It neither embraces nor criticizes, but beholds the world blankly, with knowingness that dissolves & with a commitment to irony. It takes pleasure in the play of surfaces, & that is mostly what is known, & derides the search for depth as “sensitive”, or something stupid.
Postmodern man is no longer trying to discipline a willpower. He has discarded a quest for a single identity. His stance is ironic. How convenient. Postmodern man is the concupiscent consumer. Whole lives just formed by fashion. He changes shape at will. Lives revolving around taste, not right-or-wrong; aesthetic rather than moral. Kierkegaard called him Don Juan earlier – a fucking pointless “gypsy loser with a fucking banjo”. He avoids consistency by keeping himself satiated with a thousand facades. Don’t think “straights” are excempt. That’s just another version with only a difference of surface. Consumerism is a catharsis.
With the emergence of postmodern man, we have a point of reasoning being reduced. Taste replaces what should be done.

Don’t buy the book – really bad book. It’s a “castrated” attempt of trying to be a little bit insightful with only one good definition on postmodernity found within the entire book, literally only 1 page of quality. Just confirm the source by google search. Just search Sam Keen On Postmodern Man.

Sources: “Fire In The Belly’ by Sam Keen, pgs. 110 & 111.