The Savage Hippie Video Podcast Episode 17: Tribute to Adam Parfrey

adam_parfrey

In this special episode, Ann, Edwin, and David pay tribute to legendary independent publisher and free speech advocate Adam Parfrey, who passed away on May 10th. In a roundabout way, Adam is the reason this show exists. Joining the usual threesome is a very special guest from Down Under — Richard Wolstencroft, founder and CEO of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival.

Read David’s Takimag tribute to Adam Parfrey here.

 

 

 

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.

Book Review: Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex

book of sex

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrossIronCross

Author: Jim Goad

Publisher: Feral House

Whenever Jim Goad appears on a podcast, the question that always comes up is whether he will ever do a fifth issue of Answer Me!. His answer is always “no”, that the zine was inspired by his life in Los Angeles during the early/mid 90s, was co-written with his deceased wife, Debbie, and without those elements, there can be no Answer Me!. HOWEVER, if Adam Parfrey just wanted to make a cynical cash grab AND if ” bringing back Answer Me!” just implied “putting a bunch of snarky articles that seem to be united by a single theme together in an 8″ X 11″ size book”, then I suppose you could consider Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex to be Answer Me! #5, the sex issue, just like you could consider Ilsa, the Wicked Warden to be part of the Ilsa series even though it was originally released as Wanda, the Wicked Warden and Greta, the Mad Butcher before the studio that put it out decided that the name “Ilsa” resonated with more people.

As I read Book of Sex, I found out that Jim Goad and I have a few things in common:

  • We’re both circumcised.
  • We both lost our virginity at age 18 (although technically he put his penis inside of a woman at age 12, since he had no jizz to release, nor knew exactly what the point of the action was, he says it didn’t really count).
  • We’ve both been accused of having next to no standards when it comes to the women that we find attractive, which is why…
  • We’re both attracted to Penny Marshal. If you think this is a superficial statement, then I’ll have you know that several months ago, before I had even read Book of Sex, David Cole and Ann Sterzinger harangued me for praising Marshal’s looks on an episode of Savage Hippie. I like girls that look like aliens; what can I say?

But I digress; Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex was released a decade ago, and I wish I had known about it and him back then, since the rather frank, ugly, and painfully real portrayal of everything involving sex – and I mean, as far as I can tell, there isn’t a single stone that goes unturned with regards to “this most private of human bodily functions” – confirms that my “sexist” and “unenlightened” caveman views were right all along. Or, at very least, someone else agrees with ’em, and this someone else had his book published by a company that liberals, hipsters, and arty people think is cool.

But before I actually talk about Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex, I’m going to tell you about two of my sexual conquests just to give you young people some perspective on how it was done before dating/sex/seduction/gettin’ girls was ruined by social media, dating sites, Tinder, and feminists who try to emasculate men with their “affirmative consent” bullshit.

My first tale of sexual success is in fact the time I lost my virginity. As stated above, I was 18 years old, and I KNEW that, if I wanted to be broken into the wonderful world of sex, I would need to act fast. Now, you might be wondering, “why the rush? Wouldn’t you be attending college in a couple of months, and won’t there be plenty of girls who are ready to have penises inserted inside them?” This is all true. HOWEVER, with high school nearing its end, with prom quickly approaching, and with an adorable red head named Helena, who resembles Macha Magal from SS Hell Camp giving me glances on a regular basis in the class we were in, I KNEW that the Gods were telling me that NOW was the time to act; that if I had said nothing, she wouldn’t have either, and instead of going to prom all dolled up in this wicked tuxedo as pictured below with Jared–

me_and_jared_prom

— I would have stayed home and acted superior to all the “rubes” who went out to prom and had sex, while making it painfully obvious that I really just regretted not doing anything.

Incidentally, Helena and I actually had sex the week BEFORE prom as well as on the initial night. If I had known getting her in bed would have been THAT easy, I’d have asked her out MONTHS earlier! Once I broke the ice by asking if she wanted to go to prom, I then asked her to come see my shitty punk band, the Bloodsucking Freaks, play at a local VFW hall, and then to hang out at her dinky ass, white trash house after the gig, where we fornicated for MY first and her who knows which number time… and it was FUN! Like, it wasn’t bad or weird or awkward or traumatizing or any of those things typically associated with first time sex! The lights were dimmed; her room was decorated with hippie and Wiccan knick-knacks; she had a thin, yet curvy figure, which looked great illuminated by the moonlight and her… lava lamps… We went at it for like twenty minutes to a half hour, trying out various positions while grunting and sweating; and from all of the context clues, we both got off. In fact I KNOW she did because, the one time out of three that she didn’t, she told me so. So that was that. We dated for a whopping two weeks, had sex a total of three times, hung out a couple times at the mall and maybe the arcade, saw the Dead Kennedys with Brand Cruz on vocals at Harpos, where only about twenty people showed up, and broke up because I didn’t call her for a week, which she didn’t appreciate.

And after that, I didn’t have sex for at least a year.

When I finally DID, I was in my second year of college, about 25 lbs. lighter, and had a killer physique, that I accomplished by starving myself, working out and running about seven miles a day for two and a half months. I was also now fully entrenched in my punk rock look, complete with cut-off t-shirts, mohawk, black denim, studded belt, studded wrist band, and either Converse sneakers or engineer boots. Without much effort, I scored a couple of one night stands, but when I saw Melissa, it seemed as though once again the Gods were telling me, “you GOTTA go after this one. It’s now or never, dude!” So, my friends and I were sitting in the cafeteria, and in walks Melissa. In an effort to show them I’m a bad ass, I got up as if I was Clint Eastwood, mustering up courage, but acting like it was no big deal, walked up to her, and came up with the best opener I could think of when talking to a girl who wears slutty, punk rock miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and Doc Martins; “uh, uh, uh… do you listen to punk rock?” She responded with something like, “I listen to lots of stuff.” And then I hemmed and hawed about gigs and my radio show and other pointless, air-filling garbage before I FINALLY said, “so do you want to go out sometime?”

When I came back to the table with slip of paper that had her phone number on it, I felt like I proved I have a brass scrotum. But, as anyone who’s courted a girl knows, that brief moment of victory is fleeting, for unless you’re a master pickup artist, you REALLY don’t know if she actually plans on answering her phone when you call her – this is RIGHT before all of this texting bullshit started – or if she even gave you the correct number.

And let me tell you, courting Melissa took a strong head and an iron will. I could probably sleep with other girls – I mean, I was totally in with one of these chicks already, and then kaboshed it myself – and at one point I even had a contingency plan in the form of another girl named Amber, who I started to set up plans with when I thought I wasn’t getting anywhere with Melissa, but at the end of the day, I REALLY wanted to sleep with Melissa if ONLY to prove that I could do it; and of course because she looked REALLY hot in the one-piece, rock ‘n’ roll nurse outfit, fishnets, and with her face all painted up.

But, hoo boy, was she frustrating; we’d set up a date, and she’d forget and make other plans. She’d invite me to hang out with her, and then her friends would show up. On top of that, she was dating this crazy, tattooed guy with bug eyes named Dave, who she visited on the weekend. Now, you’re probably saying, “well, dude, if she was dating Dave, why did you think she wanted to go out with you?” BECAUSE SHE GAVE ME HER NUMBER!!! AREN’T YOU PAYING ATTENTION??!! WHY WOULD SHE GIVE ME HER NUMBER IF SHE WASN’T INTERESTED IN DATING/FUCKING ME? Oh yeah, because she’s a girl, and girls do that… often. But anyway, it was a real test of my resolve; I’d run into her and say, “hey, so what’s the deal? Do you want to go out with me or what?” And she’d give me a half ass answer, not committing to a solid “yes” or “no.” See, this is back when we were taught to treat women as adults who think rationally; so when what we were taught clashed with reality, it kinda sucked! Was she interested? Was she just a typical attention whore, who loves leading guys on for her amusement? So FINALLY, after an interminable three weeks, after which I decided not to waste any more time with pursuing her, she called me that weekend, told me she’d broken up with Dave, and that she would be around a lot more often. I should add that I missed the first call, and she left a message. I was ABOUT to call her back, but a lady friend of mine said, “don’t call her. She’ll call you.” And right she was!

That Sunday night – hey, it’s college; every night’s a weekend night – after visiting my former friend Tiffany at the porno/sex toy shop that she worked at, Melissa and I went back to my place, watched a movie, and had sex; while I was on my back, Melissa finished me off with a handy, and I jizzed in my own face. Shortly after that, we started dating, and during our ten month relationship, we had sex roughly 250 – 300 times. We also watched the Devo DVD with all their music videos on it on nearly a nightly basis, watched The Filth and the Fury not quite as many times, got drunk a whole lot, and went to a Gwar gig, where she fucked lead singer Dave “Oderus Urungus” Brockie backstage. While typically we were a fun, cute couple, occasionally I would do shit like punish her by denying her sex when she’d mention the guys she had sex with before me or angrily yell at her from time to time for what seemed like no reason at all or some other melodramatic crap you do when you’re 19 and inexperienced and later realize is absolutely ridiculous. She at one point attempted to sleep with another guy named Dave – this one happened to be a buddy of mine – but thankfully his Catholic guilt prevented him from reciprocating her advances; either that or he wasn’t attracted to her. Then we had an acrimonious breakup, which was influenced by her fucking the Gwar guy. But what’s really cool is that a year later, I went out with her “best friend” Becky – female friendships re-align OFTEN, and women have next to no loyalty to each other – who was definitely cuter though less curvy. And in spite her hipster look and love for shitty indie bands like Rilo Kiley, she was quite the “don’t cum in me, but cum on me” slut, the kind that I love so much. Then she dated this guy who played drums in a punk rock band and is an SJW fag before turning lesbian and marrying a woman. Who’s to say she won’t come to her senses and eventually return to dick?

But ANYWAY; you’re ostensibly reading this post to find out if you should read and/or buy Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex, not to hear about my sex stories, even though they’re marginally related.

Book of Sex is a collection of articles that Goad wrote for the Portland based Exotic magazine, a free rag (no pun intended), that was given away at porno shops and strip clubs,. It also contains articles he wrote for other publications, such as Hustler, Screw, San Francisco Bay-Guardian, Vice, New York Press, The Probe, High Society, and the website Setgo.com. Book of Sex is divided into four sections; “fake”, “real”, “personal” and “opinion.” In the intro, Goad humorously points out that some of these sections could overlap and that the choice of category that some of the articles were placed in was pretty arbitrary.

As the “fake” section implies, the articles are all fake, or rather they are satirical in nature, often coming off (no pun intended) like X-rated Mad or Onion articles. Some of these, such as “The Sad, Strange World of Adult Films Made by Children” or “Ex-Slave Sues Dominatrix for Reparations”, conceptually seem too silly and ridiculous to pull off, but actually gave me a chuckle, while the opening article, “Home Breast-Implant Kits”, was as nauseating as a title like that implies (hint: don’t by the cheap knockoff 10 Minute Rack Attack if you don’t want to disfigure your a-cups). The “fake” section also includes an amusing article about made up STDs – my favorite being “ass moss” – another nauseating peace about “genital cosmetic surgery”, guides to cunnilingus and fellatio, an article about the penis sizes of various religious leaders, a “scare piece” about a date rape drug that is smoked rather than ingested, another gross article about “pug porn”, and a pair of phony strip club ads; one advertising Stinky’s, where you pay old women to put their clothes on, and one advertising Sharky’s, where the strippers are victims of shark bites. In general, the “fake” part is my least favorite, even though it had some amusing moments. Going forward, the book only gets better!

In the “real” section, Goad goes into investigative reporter mode, doing exposes on a wide range of topics including necrophilia, men who stick foreign objects up their anuses, gerbling – I’m not going to say what that is; if you’re curious, look it up! – sexual deformities, the male nipple, tips on getting a tighter vagina, queefing, the over-feeding fetish, various fetish groups found online, sexual dysfunctions, strange laws governing sex, homosexuality in the animal kingdom, chemical induced erectile dysfunction, motorized sexual devices, various types of animal penises, paraphilias, nudist colonies, and nuns who sexually abuse children. And yes, dick breaking is one of the sexual dysfunctions that Goad discusses. Just the thought that this could happen still freaks me out. As a result of this neurosis, I NEVER want to have a girl do me cowgirl style. Oh, I’ve done it before, but know that, as much fun as you ladies might be having bopping up and down on top of me, and as much as I do enjoy it in general, since I enjoy sex, I’m literally suffering from anxiety that my dick will fall out, and that you’ll crash land on top of it and break it; so let’s stick with the dog style or missionary, k?

In the “personal” section, Jim Goad surprisingly talks about his personal experiences with sex; one night stands, how his reputation of being a “bad boy” on account of serving a prison sentence got him way more pussy than he ever got before his prison stint, his proclivity to cheating on his girlfriends and carrying on multiple relationships at the same time, lack of sex drive while on meth, questioning whether what comes out of a woman is sexual fluid or urine, his erogenous zones, his proclivity to fucking other men’s girlfriends or “bird doggin'”, his experience trying out Viagra, his experience trying out cheap aphrodisiacs you buy at gas stations, his search for his own prostate a.k.a. the “male g-spot”, his teenage celebrity crushes – including the aforementioned Penny Marshal – his praising of older women’s sexual experience, his fetish for women with missing teeth (?!), his love for completely unshaven bush (?!), ejaculating blood (ugh!!), taking pictures of his dick and sending them to women, how shy he is the first time he’s with a woman (now, THAT seems odd for a guy like him, doesn’t it?), his virginity loss story, and the challenge of masturbating while in prison. There’s really not a lot to say about this section other than it’s fun to read. Though, there were a couple of article that seemed like duds, like how he gets horny when the weather is warm (I mean, who DOESN’T?), but otherwise the book moves smoothly into the final section…

… call “opinion.” Goad tells you what he thinks about prostitution, vaginal stink, The Vagina Monologues, the lesbian trend – like my ex Becky (See? My stories DO relate!) – obscene phone calls, hand jobs, tits (I DON’T get why he thinks tits are for little boys. I LOVE big, fat tits with the round areola and perky nipple. I prefer ass, but big, fat, yet not saggy DD’s still cause my dick to fill with blood), the Catholic schoolgirl fetish (something I DO NOT share with Goad, not because I think of it as off-putting, but because I just don’t see what all the hullabaloo is about), cat fights (they’re kinda hot, I guess), Muslim girl fetish, phony hillbilly porn sites made by Silicon Valley dweebs, sluts, the attractiveness of various Republican women, and the Mary Kay Letourneau case (a.k.a. the “hot for teacher” case). The section ends with a bunch of reviews for porno videos. Some of the articles in the “opinion” section seem more suited to be in the “real” section, such as the article about bestiality; while the article about spanking, which is in the “personal” section, seems like it should be in the “opinion” section.

The “opinion” section also includes all thirteen installations of the monthly column that Goad wrote for Exotic magazine, where he makes it VERY clear that, in spite working for a sex rag, he is not a consumer of the so called “sex industry.” He also voices his disdain for the hypocrisy and dishonesty that surrounds the Portland sex industry. In fact, I was surprised to learn that The People’s Republic of Portland, OR even HAS such a thriving sex industry. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! Wouldn’t feminists find strip clubs and jack shacks to be inherently sexist? Apparently not if you put a “sex positive” spin on it, acting as though strippers and sex workers aren’t drugged out waste cases, but are positive and uplifting role models for society.

Goad concludes his book with an article called “Biting the Whore That Fed Me: My Self-Imposed Exile from Pornland”, whose title should be self-explanatory. And I think it’s interesting to note how, in a couple years, Goad would get a job at Takimag and become one of its most beloved writers, where hilarious passages such as this one from “Muslim Girls TURN ME ON!”…

However the winds blow, the war on terrorism will be a good thing for the American male. If we win the war, we get their women. If we lose the war, we get to treat our women like they treat their women. Who’s to complain?

…aren’t wasted on overweight men who compulsively jerk off, but are read by profound and intellectual political thinkers such as myself!

Stylistically, Book of Sex is very colorful and filled with illustrations – many of them of course are dirty and X-rated per the book’s central theme, and I wouldn’t suggest leaving this one lying around in case the kids might find it – on nearly every page, and there are many fine passages that will make you laugh out loud, keep you entertained, and probably make you cringe. There are also a couple of dud articles, some whose topics I just didn’t find particularly interesting, but those are far and few in between. Although one article made me ponder of how kooky a jokester this God character must really be if he constructed human beings in such a way where the clitoris is at the TOP of the vagina, rather than at the bottom, making it so the penis has little chance of rubbing against it during intercourse; this is why, at times, women actually masturbate WHILE you’re sticking it in them. Ever notice that? That’s why they do it. I’m sure you all feel a lot more enlightened now.

SavageHippie Episode 18 B – Jim Goad: There Are No Good Guys!

me_ann_david_jim_class_of_1984

What perfect timing to get blocked from Facebook for three days!  What was my crime?  I hurt a woman’s vanity.  What happened was, after I saw another of a gazillion posts attacking Trump and our alleged “rape culture” come through my Facebook feed and seeing as this was meant for everyone to comment and give their two cents, I posted, “there is no rape culture”; which there isn’t, but there will be if Clinton gets elected allows the United States to import 100,000 Syrian “refugees.”  Hell, look what’s happened to Sweden!

Some woman with enormous breasts, but unfortunately enormous everything else, responded by saying, “I would be scared to run into you in a dark ally.”  In other words, she called me a rapist.  To this I said something to the effect of, “even though you are pretty busty, you otherwise have NOTHING to worry about”, and she reported me to the Facebook police, who deemed my comment inappropriate.  Think about that; she reported me for telling her that I, nor anyone, would ever rape her.  She was upset because someone said she isn’t attractive enough to be raped.

Anyway, if you didn’t already, I would suggests listening to Episode 18 A, the first part of our nearly three hour conversation that David, Ann and I had with Jim Goad, before this one.  However, if you prefer watching the sequel before the original, we get really heavy into what constitutes morality, if there is any in the first place and how morality is simply contingent on who is the judge of it.  I really felt like a fly on the wall listening to David and Jim talk about how they got railroaded by people who were virtue signalling their so called moral righteousness, but were really just acting out of malice.

Oh, and David and Ann belittle me a lot.

The closing is once again “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles, and the artwork that was recycled from Episode 18 A is from Clayton V.

SavageHippie Episode 18 A – Jim Goad: Don’t Call Me Right! Don’t Call Me Right!

Jim

me_ann_david_jim_class_of_1984

First man invented the wheel, then man invented fire, then man did some other cool technological shit, then the woman had sex with the man for doing all that cool shit, and then Jim Goad appeared on the Savage Hippie Podcast with me, David Cole and Ann Sterzinger.  Of course, the Jim Goad that I initially discovered is the hilarious writer for Takimag, whose article “A Reparations Plan That Makes Sense” made my mom laugh out loud and my dad say, “yeah, but how many people are actually going to read this site?” because dad’s always been a dispiriting asshole who enjoys crushing my dreams.

Turns out this same Jim Goad wrote the ANSWER Me! zine, whose fourth issue – the infamous “rape issue” – went on trial for criminal obscenity in Bellingham, Washington. Goad also wrote the BRILLIANT The Redneck Manifesto (yes I stole the word “kumbaya” from Matt Forney’s review), his autobiography Shit Magnet, his modern world sex tome Jim Goad’s Gigantic Book of Sex, and his document of mentally deranged online fans The Headache Factory.

And so, in this milestone of podcasting, Jim and the Savage Hippie crew discuss Goad’s hanging out with Phil Anselmo of Pantera, his rather unpleasant encounter with Pig Champion (guy’s name) of Portland’s most popular and quite good – in spite what Goad thinks of them as people – Poison Idea, his podcast with Blag Dahlia of the Dwarves, his getting into a fight with SHARPs (skinheads against racial prejudice), our analysis of whether Donald Trump is still killing it, and of course punk, punk and more punk!

Well, turns out that Jim and I have quite diametrically opposed views on punk rawk.  He thinks the Stooges, Ramones, New York Dolls and Dictators are OVERRATED (read that twice) while he likes… THE CLASH?!  Yeah, my heart stopped for a second as well.  His favorite band from the original New York punk scene is Suicide.  Also, if you notice, I tried to get a question in about Patti Smith, but forget it; she’s got one good song, and it’s not the one with the n-word in the title.

Also, Goad does a gorgeous acapella of a Linda Rondstadt song.

This week’s pick for the Sounds of Marshabaloosh is Detroit’s very own Against the Grain, a self-described “speed rock” group; they sound like Motörhead and Zeke with goygeous (goy, heh heh) Thin Lizzy leads ‘n’ breaks.

The closing number is and probably always will be “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles, and the artwork was done by Clayton V.

Understanding Female Psychology With The Deciphering Of Symbolism

male_female_brain

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

The point is to understand female psychology on the macro not to be negative, but to try to objectively treat it the same way a zoologist studies a lion with tranquilizers, etc..
Evaluating someone’s hatred & supposed level of  being “disgruntled” is usually a tactic to try to use an ad hominem against that person that hates – an attempt at trying to get the dissident to try to appear or say something that will be interpreted as alarming; “see, that person is not calm. That person is hysterical.” When actually it is the interpreter who is closer to being hysterical because that person could not receive the realist information with the same level of divorcement & willingness to probe the truth without twitching. Being concerned with someone’s hatred is influenced by the ignorant masses. Even if that hateful person is disgruntled, so what? Does a paper on reality lose credit because some coffee was spilled on it?” Are you bitter? “This is obviously intended to not gauge a person’s degree of enlightenment, but to try to instill that that person is in some way emotionally or mentally “sick.”

If I’m going to be literal, of course I hate them for their actions, which I have experienced. Leaving subjectivity aside, one can check the statistics & my experiences are universal, both for those who are in cognitive dissonance & those who have accepted. I would only fear admitting that I hate females if it would potentially jeopardize what I needed, such as a job interview, or some “honorable” position of having some trendy faggots accept me.A person at a higher plane of thought knows. As the saying goes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. If a trait is universal to females (& not to males to the same extent), then it would make sense to hate (or perhaps more accurately: vehemently despise) women for the actual fact of their being female, with all the skulduggery the feminine entails, without waiting around for proof of what is already self-evident and recorded by wise men from history. This is actually the more truthful and more righteous approach. It is in a woman’s nature to be despicable, thus she is to be disdained for her very existence.
Even amongst those supposedly not caring to be accepted by the trendy, the question of hate is used as a pretense of “trying to understand”. This instance is really just a sneaky, arbitrary test of “character”; “are you “civilized” enough to not be shamed?” Thus, that question is very literally a female borne social device to test how one is deemed as “proper”. It means basically nothing.

One thing I’ve noticed is that Female M.R.A.s &  often use the history & science (quite poor science actually compared to more  phallocentrists/androcentrists.) as a way to pardon the nature of females. What is funny is similar arguments could be used to help convicted felons of other crimes. Female M.R.A.s love to try to twist meaning by saying “hatred is obsession”; “you only think you hate women but you are actually so concerned with the problems due to loving them.” No, I really do hate females. F.M.R.A’s are nothing but whores who would usually not give their loyal husbands what they would a wandering Don-Juan loser who hypothetically happened to climb in through their window.

Females’ brains are different from the patrilineal. They lack capacity for abstract thought; they are unable to comprehend absolute justice, forbearance, morality, truth, logic, honor, etc., hence their better ability to intuit what is naturally their own trade when a male tries manipulative tactics on women & how they identify with Don-Juan types that use such tactics even more artfully. The theological stories of female sin causing female-hood enmass painful birth & degrading menstruation is an allegory, but, more bluntly, basically, most females are like males with damaged prefrontal lobes – mentally between being a pre-adolescent boy & a sociopath, or an alcoholic of many years.Theological parables of ‘The Bible’ are not to be taken literally. The ancient common folk had a much better understanding of human nature unequivocally, however, they only had the metaphors & tools that they had to work with. Eve “ate” of the “tree of knowledge,” retarding man from the higher realms connected to man’s higher anatomy. The “tree of knowledge” is man’s generative riches, which only his nervous system branches with such knowledge, not Eve’s. Eve ruined mans’ capability for higher knowledge, keeping him in simple sensory bondage, & activities extending to it, which otherwise would’ve caused man to use Eve much more functionally, because females are of Satan, or what Buddhist purists would call ‘the daughters of Mara’ – those who have the faces of Boddhisatvas but are demons who cut off the seeds to enlightenment, as the ancient purist Buddhists divulged. Because females have a fascination with evil, whether they’d admit it or not, The serpent tempted Eve to cause Adam to fall. What this garbled symbolism parallels is that Eve – female-hood – ordained Adam to her scattered rhythm, not the other way, which is the healthier way.

Women can beguile and subvert only the men who love them, never those who hate/know.

Hatred is a disposition of being conclusive, regardless of how that hatred is shown – with a calm temperament, with a clown suit, with anger, doesn’t really matter.

You would have to understand how phenotype & genotype works to have a better understanding of the following explanation of how female sexuality triggers the “patriarchy”.

Popular entertainment is not a 100% accurate depiction of reality. However, it can reveal values, or lack of, that a certain demographic may hold. Interestingly, the only form of popular entertainment that features “rapist or criminal equals hero” as a common trope is in romance novels written by & for, you guessed it, women.

’50 Shades of Grey’ just proves our unhealthy society, & especially female nature. It is a depiction of most females’ desires to passively extort from a dominance hierarchy. ¶ Even if they aren’t genuinely interested in this lunacy, it still proves that females are degenerate because their willingness to go-with-the-flow of whatever is trendy in a culture proves their amorality.

Akin to the argument that incorporating violence in sexuality would “alleviate” violence in society, many idiots will also claim that asserting brutish force on females keeps their unruly ways checked, but the truth is that this only fosters the cycle of what females trigger – barbarism.

It’s safe to say that nature through females is set to keep males emotionally constrained so as to ensure our return to a paradigm of them benefiting from us shutting off our rational mind to please them. One really has to dumb himself down, creating majority cultures for males who are not controlled by their instincts/libido to not have a social union due to not much common interest; parties are nothing more than just random noises accompanied by strangers so that they can have an excuse to mask their true identity, or lack there of, with alcohol &/or drugs & antics. Broadly, males evolved to learn that shutting their rational is a sure way to please females in order to get access to them. Broadly, If you remain rational, you’ll likely offend her in the courting process and lose opportunity. The negotiating is how the male is conditioned that being rational offends her and decreases chances with her. The result of the negotiation over time is the gradual cessation of rational thought that brings more chance with her. That is “emasculation”, so to speak – just utter mindless instinct..

There’s all these other pretexts in the book series ’50 Shades of Grey’, but really, let’s just realize that gynocentrism perpetuates degeneracy, & that the pretexts are really masks that females can have as excuses to indulge; supposedly, “She’s obliged to help this broken man alleviate his frustrations by allowing him to use her”. I have not read it yet, but have heard from other sources the story of that series. Female demographics identify with the main female character who leeches off of a male who has been conditioned to become highly barbarically competitive – double win. The truth is not solely found in the secret symbolism, but also in how the female demographic live through the main female character; in other words: she’s an “innocent” naive female who will get lucky with a rich male who has been taught – much like a vicious dog becomes so from abuse – to be ruthless, thus relieving any guilt of the main female character, & THAT is what sells to the female audience. This story is a symbol of ordination & control of men sold & packaged as control of women. If there’s any truth to the statement “women are emotionally stronger”, in addition to giving birth, this exemplifies it well in how females yield their ability to trick males into thinking they are “all-understanding” to really just use males – female psychology & sexuality camouflaged.

Actually, female psychology is really not that complex. So to rhetorically speak,The “mystery” is that there really is no mystery – a void. Female psychology is simple

Feminists like to complain about this movie & book series, but, especially since we know tha most of those same Feminists are secretly fond of it, let’s understand that it is a story written by Females for females.

Amoebas don’t blush. In other words: when people know they’re being experimented on, they often change their behaviour. “Only a 36% claimed to finish or like it”. Firstly, do we live in a society of people who actually tend to finish books? Females go on all kinds of impulsive spending sprees. Secondly, those who claimed to not like it, either were trying to maintain an image, or perhaps it just wasn’t sickening enough. Consider how many females read this but are just not speaking about it. Consider another percentage who aren’t participating in the survey but hold the same pro stance. Consider another percentage who have never heard of the book but is desiring it regardless. Consider another who has just not been introduced to it.

There is a high number of female commentators on this story who will proclaim that it “glorifies oppression towards women”, or something like that, but the truth is that it’s an attempt to steer the thoughts about female psychology towards the wrong direction.¶ I hate how the philosopher Stephen Molonoux tends to miss the point entirely in a few of his segments; “It glorifies violence against women”. The main problem we should focus on is how it glorifies female preference.

The writer received thousands of letters thanking her for allowing themselves to liberate their secret fantasies. It is such secrecy that has thrust many males into lassitude.

As reports of conduct during screening of the film gather, It gives an unearthing, at least only to the alert ones anyway, of female psychology.

Not always well known: Very similar to how predator-&-prey attitudes operate in prisons – that one must show he will not be taunted in order to earn respect, females are the most prominent holders of this attitude in less explicate levels.

Obviously, females are much more emotional. Their emotions come first & then they rationalize their emotions. Males do it the other way around. Females extrapolate their own personal experiences as a “higher” guide for most of reality. The highest of importance to females is how she feels – the selfish disregard – & trying to discover new things about why she feels those ways. With this selfish disregard, this is how they weed out logic in their lives, unless, of course, that logic is superficially practical. By millions of years of adaptation & then re-enforced social conditioning, they are hardwired to be primarily concerned with mostly themselves. That is how their addiction to novelty stems from & how they emphasize how things make them feel & how the society reflects upon that.

Anecdote: I remember during the period that I was slowly discovering the truth, there was a night when I had walked by a bar, for completely unrelated reasons, & heard the cyclic advice being shared outside: “You gotta be kind of a dick”, & then I cynically thought: they’re going through that reoccuring degradation. These guys could be doing something more productive.

Jim Goad, who was a part of marketing his “hipster”, contrarian style, stated that when he was released from jail he had more sexual conquests than in any other time because females were attracted to this latest legacy. Just search for a video clip: ‘Speaking in Tongues – Episode 9’ ( with Jim Goad for a more precise finding.) & skip to ~ 8:05.

I have gained from other females that some who have issues in life of knowing they cause havoc, or an irresistible desire to control everything, will seek an extreme opposing circumstnace (rape) as a sexual fantasy. Forced sex fantasies can be a way to release feelings they are unwilling to accept. Such feelings are being relieved by distraction when control by another is taken away. Sometimes it is the only way to derive sexual gratification for them. It relieves the secrets for females to have. It’s a way of “sweeping it under the rug.” They mix this form of “punishment” with intense adrenaline rushes & pleasure with negativity as a means of masking thoughts & realities that would normally cause dishonor.

The point of the following is not cheap entertainment, etc., but to make a distinction between general female sexuality – “political” – & general male sexuality – corporal. Sure, there’s some variation to the latter, but it is linked to bodily inclinations. It is its “primordial” state before the cycles of cultural conditioning & feminine behavioural influences.  You won’t get a realistic understanding because females are anti-science, & they have been monopolizing socializing for too long.
Mine is revolving of facial & oral sex, both giving & receiving. I like faces very much – a face fetish.
Males are fond of body parts & visual enhancement of such parts. The general male brain has been reported by science to be much more visually oriented with conjunction to systematizing. [Citation: ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, page 301.]

I have very high testosterone levels, so my sexuality is all-natural & kind of “excessive”, I also never had my four skin removed, which has interestingly caused osome others to think that I was “molested.” Fucking idiots. That assertion comes from the fact that we live in a society addicted to lamer forms of entertainment, so there’s a lack of knowing how to experiment well, & so masculinity is not allowed to flourish, not on masculine terms anyway – garbage & acting instead. I’ve been with females who had the nerve to imply or ask if I was molested when I introduced my sexuality to them, then they would indulge in their more extreme sexuality when the mood was different. If realism is understood, 75%(+) of American males have been molested because of genital mutilation. I have more proof regarding this in private. “But what does this have to do with female nature when it’s the patriarchy literally stripping away part of male essence?” Natural selection has instinctively been gynocentric of the past & recent, as females have been waiting for offers & checking what they do or don’t want. Remember: humble, rational males are “creepy”, “pathetic,” or useful. It wasn’t planned, & that’s my point – feminine instincts. Gynocentrism just continues instincts.

Just like how I explained in another article on social engineering how attempting to destroy the family unit only made female nature better known, you can sometimes learn from evil. It’s a form of scientific experimentation. Many males can attest to how doing certain things to females will bring out their latency. In this context, females are more likely to be receptive to the profaning & reactionary character of males who have been perverted by circumcision.

 Emphatic: female genital mutilation is a minority case, therefore, I do not write about it other than in stating: nobody should have their genitals mutilated, not even the idiots who implemented the practice.

An instant reply would be: This is the “patriarchy” doing this bad stuff. Well, that’s true, but the “patriarchy” was selected by a matriarchy because females prefer reactionary males over intellectual. In order for phenotype of the gene pool to be superior, females should be disenfranchised.

There’s an article on Shedding-Of-The-Ego-dot-com you can search that states that fibroblasts & the cosmetics industry is bizarrely connected to the profitable business of baby foreskins.It is of high demand for the cosmetic industry to produce creams that makes skin appear younger. The ingredient used is fibroblast cells. Fibroblasts makes skin regrow elasticity & have a rejuvinating appeal. The most potent source for such cells is baby foreskins. It has been reported that a singular baby foreskin contains fibroblasts that are worth thousands worth of dollars. Harvsting for gynocentrism, implemented by the reactionary “patriarchy,” a piece of a baby’s body part that can not grow back is sold to the highest bidder for profit.

If you think that’s mythical, consider how they process soaps from fats.

Oprah has even endorsed such a lotion.

Companies are making a market by using fibroblast injections that promote skin enhancing protien called collagen, which is scarce with the elderly. Companies wish to compete with the billion-dollar botox industry. With the botox industry using injections of toxin that makes users look constantly shocked & can cause life-threatening botulism, fibroblasts from foreskin cells is likely a good competitor. Very, very bizarre.

If you were to verbally analyze to most females that they should be disenfranchised & only allowed very basic rights, females would be infuriated, hysterical, laugh at you, or something like that. However, if you actually employed this by action, most females would be very happy. Encouraging females to be sexy – fit & supple – is extremely easy in comparison to what is done to males, & is actually a health benefit for females as well as relieving them of additional tasks from the tasks they already have of being concerned with their bodily functions & sensational states, while females encouraging males, not even honestly, which makes it even worse, to be restless & opposing is unhealthy.

I’ve even directly heard from females that the appeal is not just the power-display, but also the fact that such a male would disregard etiquette because he just couldn’t resist her.

We need to analyze female psychology for what it is, laugh at it, & stop promoting it because it’s ordaining absurdities in society.

Further: Without wasting too much time, If you can probe to the core of meaning by peeling away the aesthetics, you are highly intelligent, & also mentally immune to manipulation & the ruining effects of infatuation. There’s a difference of having one’s mind stuck on enjoying an aesthetic & actually being able to analyze it. Before you make the dismissal of “it’s just a movie,” I will school you: Yes, The series ’50 Shades Of Grey’ (More like ’50 Shades of Black-&-White, Crystal-Clear Truth’.) is a work of fiction, which is part of my main point. The actual title should’ve been: ’50 Shades Of Greed, Sexual Attraction To Violence, & An Illogical/unrealistic/Feminine Projection/Reversal Of Masculinity – Bipolar & Histrionic.’ You can not capture the mind of a female integrally. You have to drastically adopt their impulse to do so. As some tantric practitioners would say all for the traitorous claim of not having fear: you’re going into her domain of pure emotions. Meaning: you’ll be confronted with uneccassary aggression, etc.. Sure, although it’s not my personal preference, they probably have some good sex sometimes, but it’s not real submission by her. It’s fake. Not only does the theme written by a woman & supported by, statistically, females ruin what masculinity is, even the title ruins what obscurity is – feminine scattered cognition labeling itself as “grey” – obscurity, but it’s really just barbarism. Real obscurity – shades of grey – is male thought processes – the abstract. These greedy projections is a fucking “cartoon” which shows they’re real greed. This work of fiction is not a cerebration of accuracy, but it is an ideation that many females want, which can be analyzed quantitatively, just like a scientific survey, just a different model. It’s statistics.

What exactly is the rugged/Alex Grey archetype. A rugged man, without the sex appeal that females have glamorized, but actually objectively, is nothing more than an abused/struggling male.

If you want a demographic analysis, make a quantitative analysis of ’50 Shades Of Grey’. Pornography for females is not nearly as visually emphasized. A large part of female pornography is literature. Even an emphatic part of that story is that the main female character is blindfolded. Visual stimulation is more of a masculine emphasis, hence male fetishes of body parts & objects much more common. Simulations – actions, however, are much more apart of female sexuality.

Aside from the point that b.d.s.m. is just really bad, clumsy sex due to circumcision, which I have given citations to in another article, done by the “patriarchy,” which was set by female-hood because females have been weeding rationalism, there’s been reports even from the b.d.s.m. community that the series ’50 Shades of Grey’ actually depicts that lifestyle in a bad way, & the reason that is is because it’s a projection from the female author of what she thinks it should be.

He gives the main female character the meaningless garbage that she wants. A true male controlling would have his female companion, not one that’s easy to dictate because she’s mediocre or ugly, doing errands & supplying him with tools, like an apprentice – a true servant, not this fake kind. This fake “submission” is one that females use to rate a male’s performance to give her novelty. This wrong rendition is given to the culture by females’ prerogative, ratified by females’ in-group preference, immature sexuality, which is often the state of paraphilia – fantasies of randomly being blind-folded by gun-point, etc. – that is frequently natural to the general female that has inundated so much of the culture that males have been influenced by it (This has nothing to do with being “timid” or “puritanical.” It’s much more complicated.), amorality, & poor logic/aesthetics, which is continued because, due to the fact that many males do not want to have the stigma of not being able to be certified by femininity, especially because gynocentrism makes it “uncool” to be intelligent, there is a scarcity – fucking traitors – of males to reset order. Sure, the main male character of that series is authoritarian, but what does he do with his authority? He devotes all that effort & time to the devotion of her. The fundamental theme of that series is “more, more, more” for her – how much sensory experience can she extort from him.  Instinctual or otherwise, It is the natural trade of the female to instill misleading imagery; in this case a relationship that only on the observational level makes one believe that the female character is subservient because of the b.d.s.m. imagery, but she is far from a maid figure, partly because female-hood has twisted the “motherly” figure to have connotations of caring for a weakling, never a hard working male or a male with a separate life of his own. Females frequently twist meaning to suit their agenda, & because they have so much power in society, they alter organic truth. Unfortunately, how the stupid b.d.s.m. phenomena works is because it entraps (no pun intended). It works in the same way that one can not easily stay awake if one is entering a deep sleep.

I’d rather have real sex – sloppy, disgusting, slimy, sweaty, filthy, organic, instead of preparing all this equipment. She should be the one prepackaging,  not I. I’ve experimented with it before to discern what the hype was, & it really wasn’t that stimulating. Yeah, I have to admit, there were some moments of heitghened stimulation, but, mostly, it’s just disheveled, clumsy, & unskilled. I’ll use an analogy: When listening to a c.d., I don’t want the recording to skip. B.D.S.M. is just a digression that makes sex “skip”

The female rape fantasy/b.d.s.m. (Doesn’t even deserve to be typed in capitals.) /s.&m. paraphilia is not just an appeal of many females only because it is a symbol of cave-man, physical protection, power, & status – that’s only true to a smaller extent, but the fundamental reason is it’s a symbol of abstract protection from herself. A male who can indicate that he can provide her with the most extreme forms of novelty & performance is an indication to her that she can have distractions readily available to her to ward off shame & anxiety from herself. Most males can attest to the fact that females can’t handle being just slightly bored or a little uncomfortable for just barely 1 minute before moving on to something else. They try to weed out logic largely because they are insecure with themselves, & society largely revolves around comforting them by habituation.

In order to understand why females should be disenfranchised, I suggest that we should understand female sexuality as rooted in politics & drama, while female psychology being, which is linked to its sexuality, rooted in amorality & poor logic.

You, as a male, don’t have to conform to her fake submission. You don’t have to compete on her implied desires & hypergamy. You can do the weeding process. Does she conform to your ideals, or does she expect you to give her what she wants? You don’t have to pretend. You don’t have to degrade yourself by performing. You don’t have to gain validation from her. You don’t have to do her implicit demands. You don’t have to meet her at such-&-such. You can make her come to you. It’ all about you. If she’s not willing to conform to you, you wouldn’t want her anyway, & that is how the totally alert selective process works, instead of employing a facade, replacing your frustration on other males, & ruining your masculinity. Don’t comply to her plans, except for essentials, because they’re bad planners.

Males are more noble than bad, occasional mistakes, sometimes some defective ones. We’ve organized the world in our each own way. But now largely in western society we are seen as lower than a dog, largely due to projections of female nature.

The funny thing is is that the ‘Alex Grey’ archetype that females secretly fantasize about, which is not so secretive anymore, is most likely the type of male who would be in jail, which are usually chivalrous, or prison – the type of male that scientists – “beta” males – have discerned to score on the low scale of i.q. testing, while “beta” males to score on the higher rating, & females tend be just average, so this inaccurate idea proves the scattered, childish thought process of female nature. Most males who are that successful are so called “beta” males – doctors,etc., & the rampant divorce rate, or at least a grueling nagging relationship, started by females’ amoral plausible deniability is because such “beta” males can not give what females often secretly want. Unfortunately now though, not knowing how to truly fix things, a large percentage probably will, just like how some males entertain such a facade due to insecurity of how the female will consider his organic nature, & also parallel to male marketers who have taken advantage of this aspect of female psychology, try to become this retarded, cruel “ex-convict” who just somehow magically “reinvented the airplane & marketed it” – rather: a very stupid male who inherited another “beta” male’s money – a scattered feminine archetype as a “Billy Madison” with a good body & the emotional impulse of a woman, who is also her vicious, being inculcated from early age to “tough it out”, “man-up”, guard dog, & we can’t even accept that women are the cause of problems in relationships. It’s so obvious.

The archetypal “conservative”, not to use politically, male is usually just a subsidiary to her, which I will give more citations to when I have more time. They have a dichotomous preference; they might have use for the productive, logical males, but they’d give more to ex-convicts, etc..

Why make pop. culture references? If you are confused, you don’t understand my anti-aesthetics philosophy. It’s called being 100% alert & objective always, as well as integrative. It’s called knowing-your-enemy. Aesthetics is my enemy. It’s not an enjoying/allowing of aesthetics. It’s a deconstruction & negation of them. Don’t think that I only make such references. I also type about science & other studies. It is not for the sake of being witty & entertaining. It’s the opposite. These are psychological studies, & they can be found in places you don’t realize. The point is to discern propagated waves of demographic psychology, either mass facades, false beliefs, &/or some accurate reportage delivered in different symbols, as well as how demographics think, or, in these cases, don’t think. This is another archetype: In the film ‘Forest Gump’ the main character is taken advantage of numerously by a nihilistic female. First she leaves him to experiment with some “gypsy” losers, then comes back to him years later after gaining a.i.d.s., & also gives him her child with a.i.d.s.. Most people don’t analyze it because it’s entertaining/aesthetic.

Divorce is plenty rewarding, & not only do lawyers additionally compose the biggest licensed block in the majority of legislatures, many judges are also laywers. When David C. Morrow was writing an essay in 1983 about the phenomena frequently happening in the divorce industry, he wrote many state government representatives seeking statistics on their legislatures to be applied in the anti-lawyer newspaper entitled ‘The Truth.’  He learned that these sleazy licensed villains comprise a hefty amount who are also senators, barristers, professional legislators, & assembly bodies. Little has changed since that time.

 The issue of many laws is to incentivize females to divorce with guarantees of estate & material resolutions, mortal assistance, child custody, & inheritence profit while judges neglect their own orders in instances of females violating them, & reject to support the fathers’ rights. So, to increase the amount of money to their even then inflated profit, lawyers expropriate offspring of feasible security & bid copious females to take their youth through perennial procedures of continuous weddings & transient affairs, making the child injustice epidemic anti-masculinists beguile to lament.

The prestidigitation of anti-masculinists, which promotes the goals of the legal system, is to encourage that most females remain infantile with havoc & symbiotic on the welfare state while dupe to do the contrary. Because they can readily use from the next abundance, this Breeds the acclaimed “empowered” women that they don’t require male help & has given women more governmental free stuff & stolen men’s pensions. The matriarchy falsely fronted as the “patriarchy” permits women to live immature sexual lives, without consideration for the bad results for men, but also for condition of children. The causatum is to ramify men to be forsaken suitors, worthy only of service for the probable protracted ex-wife, & offspring misused & abortable. Then the father will be blamed for all the problems because he allowed himself to be interpreted as incompetent by traditional standards, especially with the factor of him being the natural protector of the offspring.

These paragraphs typifies how the effeminate/anti-science/anti-truth “patriarchy” is basically enacted by femalehood’s collectivism. You really have to question why it is that sociopaths breed, & why such meanings of sociopaths are basically non-existent & other meanings altered, when females are the ones choosing these enactments they apparently identify with their conceit so well. Their enactment of this is a model of the present cycle of false “patriarchy” contrived by matriarchy, which was earlier set in motion by females because they are the choosing repository from which their fastidiousness for their particular phenotype springs, which, in turn, is transmitted in the human breeding pool, repeating the cycle. Do I really have to repeat the ’50 Shades Of Greed’ that females subscribe to? It’s due to the intrinsically wild animal-like nature & hidden meanness of females to coerce/denounce, usually vicariously, what is too intricate for them as “bad”,  consequently huddling with males that can act like them &/or are stupid like them, which then occludes & misuses what isn’t like them, & then those who aren’t like them will often, often barely noticing of the series of actions that influenced it, become maladjusted.

A male-centric paradigm shift predicated on male logic would rid of much corruption in society & create a corrective congenital substratum. In other words: don’t give rights to females & make them slaves (possibly apprentices as the minority ones) to a science-absolutist-based/masculine society so as to guard that it does not become occluded. I vaticinate that most of them would rejoice in such chores anyway.

Phenotype incorporates biobehaviour in the similar way as how a bird building its nest is influenced by a combination of the mental & cultivated inheritance from successions’ interaction with it’s environment & other association.

Nomenclature of the level of civics limits understanding of technicalities of the processes in which organisms are integrated. Civics by non-realist standards is mostly just pseudo-intellectualism. Real intellectuals are not concerned with repressing their tone as “painful.”

Disenfranchising females would prepare them as better receptacles for better development.

 

Citation: ‘How Women Manipulate – Essays Toward Gynology’ by David C. Morrow, pg. 66

Book Review: The Redneck Manifesto

The-Redneck-Manifesto

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrosshalf_ironcrossVery good!

Author: Jim Goad

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

I was talking with a buddy of mine who works at a record store about Donald Trump, and while his views are polar opposite to mine, he finds the Donald amusing rather than infuriating, especially when he says that he appeals to the uneducated.  After all, Donald Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator, right?  His language is plain, he appeals to emotions and he taps into the simple-minded, unenlightened common folk who still believe that ‘bortions are wrong, that women should be in the kitchen, that gays are evil Satanic pervs and that whites are downtrodden, in spite having the world handed to them on a silver platter thanks to the labor of non-whites.  However, when I hear words like “uneducated” and “unenlightened”, the first thing that I think is “un-indoctrinated.”

For you see, as far as I’m concerned, those dumb, uncultured, uneducated, unenlightened, backwards thinking, mouth breathing, hillbilly, white trash honkies, who everyone likes to lampoon in the movies and TV, actually ask the best questions.  “Why IS it okay for blacks to call me a honky or a cracker?”  “Why is Al Sharpton allowed to talk about how much he hates whitey on TV, and not lose his career for it?”  “Why is it okay for blacks to have black pride, Asians to have Asian pride, Latinos to have Latino pride and Jews to have Jew pride, but not okay for me to have white pride?”  As Goad put it, “I didn’t even care about having white pride until you told me that I wasn’t allowed to.”  Seriously, try asking any of those questions at a college or among your liberal friends and you’ll be tarred and feathered as a racist, neo-Nazi, KKK leader quicker than you can say “white privilege.”  Get caught on someone’s camera phone mentioning it and say goodbye to your career.  With The Redneck Manifesto,  Jim Goad of Answer Me! zine and current editor of Takimag attempts to set the record straight on the bogus claim of “white skin privilege.”

Jim Goad wrote his near masterpiece way back in 1997, years before there was a thing called the Alternative Right and during the height of the Clinton administration.  Though uneven at times, Manifesto has enough historical facts, cultural analysis and witty one liners crammed into its 255 pages that it should be REQUIRED reading for any college civics course that hasn’t already been turned into a cultural Marxist think tank.

The basic thesis of The Redneck Manifesto is simply that the big disparity in the United States is between classes, rather than races.  The book also addresses that which has widely become manifest in many a college campus; that the cultural puritans are now on the left, rather than the religious right.  Goad dedicates a good chunk of the final portion of the book to trashing white liberals and pointing out inconsistencies in their thinking.  Unfortunately he fails to link old school Marxism to cultural Marxism and, as a result, parts of the book take on a sort of kumbaya, “all of the races are united and angry at the man” message.  I honestly wonder if he simply hadn’t read about cultural Marxism yet or if Manifesto represents a transition in Goad’s political views.  He does briefly bring up how cops kill more white people than black people, how black people kill more white people than white people kill black people and how black people kill more of their own than white people kill black people, but, for some reason, he still felt the need to mention that blacks are equally oppressed as whites by the system.  I found this last part a little tough to take in, especially since he wrote this piece about black reparations.  I mean, you can’t be Howard Zinn and Jared Taylor.

But the majority of Goad’s tome takes on some assumptions about the various honky cultures.  He tells the history of Irish slavery and indentured servitude and how it was often worse than black slavery.  He talks about how many British criminals were sent to the New World as slaves before they were shipped off to Australia.  He discusses the etymology of words like “redneck”, “honky” and “cracker” and how, if you want true parity, you should treat them as if they are racial slurs that are as bad as those directed at any other group.  He delves deeply into the unquestioning religiosity of Southerners, including their faith in faith healers and snake handlers.  And he asks the all important question: “What’s so bad about hatemongers, gun nuts and paranoid, tax-resisting extremists?”  Obviously the name of that chapter is tongue in cheek, but draws attention to the fact that most “experts” on the topic of “extremists” excuse these people with the ad hominem of “they’re crazy”, which is lazy, disingenuous and indicative of how easy it is to pigeonhole and stereotype entire groups of people.  Sound familiar?

Some of the conspiracy cult segments seemed to go off the main topic a bit.  As entertaining as it was reading about his hanging with Elvis/Bigfoot/UFO/Weekly World News enthusiasts, it almost seemed like I was reading a segment out of Apocalypse Culture, rather than a treatise on race relations in the U.S.  That’s not a major complaint though, and I was introduced to the written work of Western Bigfoot Society president, Ray Crowe, so that’s a plus.

If you’re familiar with Goad’s writings, you should know what to expect.  He’s full of acerbic wit and clever turns of phrase that can say more in one sentence than some political pundits say in entire speeches.  And any use of racial slurs is purely to make a point, rather than to exhibit malice, which Goad seems to be completely free of; in fact the man is probably one of the most ideologically pure writers I have ever read.  As I mentioned, his rhetoric occasionally sounds downright “power to the people” style Marxist, which is later contradicted by his disgust for having so much of his tax money taken from him.  I’m still not sure if that’s because he doesn’t like what the government will do with his tax money or if he’s just fighting for free market principles.

And, since the book is somewhat politically ambiguous and more focused on culture, you don’t have to be a right winger to enjoy and appreciate it.  In other words, if you’re a non-PC Sanders supporter, meaning that you want all the “perks” of big government, yet you still think it’s cool to grab a woman’s ass at a bar or to make racist jokes, you can totally get into this book.  And I HIGHLY suggest that you do.