America’s (False) Honesty Fetish: A Product of Our Christian Heritage?

We’re all coping all the time. We cope our way through life, lying like fools the whole time, and not caring a whit. Success in life is based on deception, mostly to oneself but also to others.

I like the attitude of the Japanese towards this. If you tell a Japanese men, preferably one over 40, that you never lie, he will laugh right in your face, call you an idiot, and walk away. To the Japanese, nothing is dumber than pathological honestly.

I think America, or Gentile America anyway (not so sure about (((America)))) seems to have a huge honestly fetish. I tell this vignette to Americans all the time, and all I get is cope. I also tell Americans that you have to lie sometimes in life. After that, I get a load more of cope. Usually of the “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, which is obviously itself a lie. To lie is human. To be pathologically honest, I think one might have to be an actual computer. Sure a computer could be programmed to never lie. The thing’s as dumb as a rock. It only knows whatever we told it. It can’t know anything else.

Of course we could discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but that’s more of a thought exercise than an actual possibility in life.

I think America’s pathological honestly fetish, which probably isn’t even as real as it claims to be because most if not all who claim to be pathologically honest are lying right there, must be down to our Christian heritage. Not Judeo-Christian heritage.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most People Are Simply Incapable of Arguing Fairly or Using Logic in Argumentation

Let me tell you something. Most people don’t believe in fair argumentation. It’s just too male, and humans are too insecure to engage in pure male thinking. Nietzsche was onto this. In fact his strong man was not a fascist but someone strong enough use cold hard logic and live with the results without dissolving in emotional insecurity like a little bitch. In other words, an ubermensch.

So most people argue in a very dirty way. Everyone I argue with takes the black and white position. My guys/my side 100% good, 0% evil. They won’t admit to one bad thing about their side. The other side 100% evil, 0% good. You can say anything good about the other side. If you say 99 bad things about them and one good thing, you have gone over to the enemy.

Sometimes I will praise Trump. Of course I hate him as much as any Trump hater, but now and then, he does the right thing, especially on foreign policy, where he is actually halfway different from the usual bloodthirsty imperialist maniac US president. But whenever I point out that I support some one thing Trump did, my idiot Democrat friends smile and say, “You going to vote for him?” Other times they will positively scream at me, “Don’t praise him! Don’t say anything good about him!”

Well, I hate Trump 98%. A few times he’s right. Because I think he’s right 2% of the  time, that means I’m going to vote for him! Because if you don’t oppose someone 100% (99% is never good enough) that means you support them!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Complete Deterioration of Literary Criticism in the Last 40 Years

I like to read literary criticism sometimes because it’s some of the hardest stuff out there to understand, at least for me. Forget philosophy. Don’t even go there. Lit Crit is different. With Lit Crit it’s hard as hell to understand and it’s incredibly smart and dense, but you can pretty much understand most if not all of it, so it’s worth it. I call it giving my brain a workout, and to me it’s similar to going to the gym for your body.

I recently read a couple of Hemingway’s best short stories. Then I found and read two Lit Crit articles about them. Lit Crit is very useful this way. If you haven’t already read the work, I’m not quite sure how useful it is or how much you would get out it. But if you’ve read it, Crit is often great for explicating the work and explaining deeper meanings, themes, etc. hidden in the text.

One was in a journal called Journal of College Literature from 1980. It was remarkably down to earth for a Lit Crit journal, especially the issues around published around that time. So I started going through a few decades worth of the journal.

I noticed that the Lit Crit from ~40 years ago was much different and frankly much superior to the gobbledygook out nowadays. It then focused on individual books and was fairly straightforward, simply looking for explications of the events, characters, plots, and themes in the book.

As I moved forward a couple of decades, everything changed. Now it was all postmodernism. Lit Crit about individual works were less common. The crit became ridiculously politicized with SJW and PC Leftist slants towards everything. Now I am a Leftist myself (albeit a weird one) but for the life of me, I do not understand why we need to litter our Lit Crit with Leftist political theory.

In addition to Marxism, there was also inordinate focus on women (feminism, mostly a joke field called Women’s Studies), gays and lesbians (from the lens of a ridiculous and bizarre field called Queer Studies), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other non-Whites (same thing- focus on non-fields like Black and Hispanic Studies), on and on.

Pretty much all they wrote about were these “oppressed minorities.” Cringey Queer Studies essays searched for and discovering non-existing homosexuality in perfectly straight stories (Did you know Moby Dick is a gay novel?) and secret homosexuality in completely straight authors (Did you know Shakespeare was gay?). It’s weird and stupid.

There was also a strange attempt to find some silly “woman angle” in novels where women were not particularly important to the story.
There was also a focus on older books written by women and minorities which are apparently good books merely because they were written by a minority or woman and not for any other reason.

Why Lit Crit has to be all about oppressed minorities is beyond me. Fine, some minorities are oppressed. We need a politics to address that. But why trash up Lit Crit with leftwing obsessions with minority groups? Last time I checked, straights, Whites, and men also existed. Can we maybe keep the politics out of our Crit and just talk about the books without turning everything into a political rally?

Another worse problem went along with this. The essays became dominated by postmodernism and were much harder to understand. There were references to philosophy scattered all through everything (particularly unintelligible Continentals like Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, Cixous, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucalt, Frankfurt School, DeLueze and Guattari).

That’s all fine and dandy but why can’t we keep unintelligible philosophers out of our Lit Crit? What do incomprehensible Frenchmen spouting nonsense have to do with the novels we read?

It is true that the essays became much more demanding, but there was also a lot of silly talk about things like the Body (?), the Male Gaze (!?), the Text, the Author, the Reader (Barthes), on and on with weird, silly postmodern concepts.

In addition, somehow they became strangely repetitive in that they obsessed over the same postmodernist tropes and views in essay after essay. After a while, it seemed like I was reading the same essay again and again and learning little about the actual books being discussed.
Finally, it became quite boring as a result of this repetition.

tl/dr: Lit Crit has completely deteriorated over the past 40 years. It’s now a swamp of barely comprehensible postmodernism and obsessions with women, gays and minorities. Leftist politics and incoherent Continental philosophers litter every essay, turning it from a brain workout into muddy slow trod up a mountain in the rain without boots or a poncho.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Anyone Else Reading the Classics?

I just read Moby Dick a while back.

Well worth it! And I am currently working on the following. As you can see, I am not that far into most of them. The ones where I don’t list how many pages I’ve read means I’ve barely touched, them, just a few pages in at most. This is how I read. If you count books like that, I am reading 170 books right now but most of them are just a few pages in.

Currently reading:

Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, Novel.

Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights, Novel.

Conrad, Heart of Darkness (reread), Novella.

Conrad, Lord Jim, Novel, (35 pages).

Dickens, Great Expectations (reread), Novel.

Dickens, Hard Times, Novel.

Dickens, Oliver Twist, Novel.

Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, Novel.

Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Novel, (15 pages).

H. A. Grueber, Myths of Greece and Rome, Nonfiction, Mythology.

Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Non-fiction, Philosophy, (26 pages).**

Thomas MacAulay, Lays of Ancient Rome, Narrative Poem Collection***

Melville, Billy Budd, Novella.

Milton, Paradise Lost, Epic Poem (type of Narrative Poem), (156 pages into Book One).***

Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols Non-fiction, Philosophy**

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Nonfiction, Military.

Walter Scott, Lady of the Lake, Narrative Poem, (47 pages).*

Tolstoy, War and Peace, Novel, (15 pages).

Wells, War of the Worlds, Novel.

Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Novel.

* Difficult, archaic language.

** Hard to understand, conceptually/narratively difficult

***Both difficult, archaic language and hard to understand, conceptually/narratively difficult.

None of the rest are particularly hard to read in my opinion. You have to go slow with Conrad though because he’s so dense. You can read him fast, sure, but then you will be missing a lot of it. It’s like Moby Dick in that respect. I also found the Brontes quite dense for some reason. I had to read them slowly, but I’m not sure why. They’re not dense in the same way Conrad is; instead they are different.

Dickens, Dostoevsky, Melville, Tolstoy, Wells,
Wilde, and even Sun Tzu are not particularly hard to read, though Melville and Sun Tzu are both pretty dense.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: It’s Possible to Be So Good That You are Bad!

The SJW’s are obnoxious and even wicked because they are too good. That’s the bitter truth. You can be so good that you are basically evil! Think of stern Puritans in New England, Dante staring down at every citizen as a sinner in 15th Century Florence, and even fundamentalist Muslims, the main problem of whom once again is that they are too good for the most part. Shariah Law expects you to be too good. That’s why it’s downright evil!

If some stern religious policeman is beating me up for looking at a woman or a radical feminist is firing me from my job for doing the same thing, in both cases I am being persecuted for acting like a human being and not being enough of a goody good choirboy. I’ma call the guy who is beating me up and the bitch who got me fired evil scum, sorry. Sanctimonious people who expect everyone to be saints are actually so good that they’re bad!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Best People Feel the Worst and the Worst People Feel the Best

A lot of nations and peoples commit genocide. Genocide is almost normal human behavior. But good people and nations feel bad after they Holocaust a group. Sometimes it takes them a bit of civilizing to get there, but get there they do.

These psychological types act the worst of all but feel no guilt. As an example, psychopaths are wildly aggressive and show absolutely zero guilt. Obsessionals on the other hand, are the least aggressive people on Earth and are overwhelmed with guilt. This seems bizarre until I learned this in my counseling practice.

The best people feel the worst. The worst people feel the best. Why the Hell do good people feel bad? Because it is their extreme guilt itself which keeps them acting good! Why to bad people feel great? Because it is precisely their lack of guilt which makes them act so bad!

It seems totally confounding until you sit down and think about it.

This is also why I think clinicians attacking their clients’ guilt and self-help types urging us to get rid of our guilt are worse than charlatans. Not only will their tactics achieve their goals – the theory is that ridding someone of guilt will make them a better person – but actually backfires and makes people worse, so it’s iatrogenic. They claim to make better people by dissolving people’s sense of guilt but instead they are making people worse.

One of the first things I do with my clients, who typically come to me overwhelmed with guilt, is to congratulate them for their extreme sense of guilt and conscience. I also tell them that their guilt is what is creating their illness, so too much guilt is not necessarily a good things. But I tell them that the very reason that are ill in the first place is because they are good people. In fact, they are actually too good!

Yes, it is indeed pathological to be too good. Former Jew Catholic convert and virtual saint Simone Weil starved herself to death during World War 2. The world was a very evil place then, and Weil was simply too good for this world, so she checked out.

And like Weil, I tell my clients that their problem is that they are good people in a bad world, and worse that they are simply too good for their own good. There’s no reaso to be a saint and being too good can actually lead to social pathology because we simply did not evolve to be saints. In fact, in the past, primitive people who were too good probably were the first to get killed.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Geniuses, Male/Female and White/Black

Geniuses, in addition to being brilliant, are often either weird (Einstein) or nuts (Sam Peckinpah, Hemingway, Phil Spector).

Because in order to take the creative process to its ultimate heights, you really have to leave this earthly world and ascend up beyond that to the world of Gods, as the Greeks used to say.

And when you truly leave the Earth, you enter the world of the sky, Gods and spiritual beings good and bad, madness, strangeness, and otherworldly-ness. In a sense, you sort of have to go nuts to produce truly great art. If you’re not nuts enough, you’re just to normie to ascend like that.

Sanity, in addition to all the great things it is, is, after all, also mediocrity, the quotidian world or work, home, strict social rules, and complete suppression of dreams, feelings, and really anything wild. The 9-5 world of rush hour and cubicles doesn’t tolerate wildness very well. One reason I usually get fired after a year or so, I suppose.

Check out Otto Weininger on genius and Nietzsche on the ubermensch.

Traditionally from the Greeks on it was thought that only men could access this sort of perfect Platonic concept of genius because men were of the sky, beyond the earth to the airy world of pure ideas which most women, even those with genius IQ’s hate like the plague.

The world of the woman is the world of people, babies, children, friends, lovers, husbands, sons, daughters, and parents. In order words, the world of the earth.

The Greeks said that women were “of the earth” and that men were “of the sky” or at least could try to be. Which one is closer to God? Get it?

This is often thought to be a misogynistic attitude, but I think it’s just true. Of course there are many brilliant women, including geniuses, but have you ever noticed how many of the female pure geniuses in the above sense (the airy world of pure ideas) are rather mannish, masculine, or even full-blown lesbians? Start with genius Laurie Anderson, and she’s not even a dyke. Female philosophers? Try Anita Rondell. Lesbian.

Weininger actually said that women were simply incapable of genius. He thought that if there ever to were to be a female genius, she would probably be a lesbian. Bang on.

Now I am not saying that being of the sky is better than being of the Earth or any of that. Women surely don’t feel that way. They think the world of the sky is the world of men. They also think it is unsufferably boring and find it incomprehensible how and why men would even endeavor to live in such a world. I’ve had brilliant women ask me this?

Why would you even do something like that?

About my crazy herculean projects like cataloguing all of the German and Chinese dialects or languages? To her it was incomprehensible. Why would anyone waste their time doing such a stupid and boring thing. Makes no sense.

This is why most women, even those with IQ’s over 140, are not pure intellectuals in the male sense of the world meaning the airy world of ideas and pure concepts torn loose from all of their Earthly moorings.

But who cares about geniuses anyway? What’s a genius?

There are plenty of brilliant women out there, and the female genius tends to a performer of pure emotion. I listed Marianne Faithful as a teenager and then in her 40’s as an example of “the female genius.” So it’s not that female geniuses do not exist, but it’s more that they take a different form of “pure emotional (feelings)” genius rather than “pure intellectual (thought) genius.”

I also think that Black people have a certain type of genius that I call “the Black genius.” It’s also quite different from the “White male genius.” It’s not inferior, it’s just different, and there are few if any male geniuses who seem to think and behave like the Black male genius.

A shocking number of brilliant Blacks, usually men, embody this rather strange type of genius. Few if any Black women do so this is really the Black male genius.” But to search for the “Black female genius,” perhaps once again we have to look into the world of pure emotion, like Ronnie Spector above, Billie Holiday, Tina Turner, or Pam Grier, the actress.

Catch my drift?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Fuck the World: Die With a Smile on Your Face and a Middle Finger in the Air

I’m not here to bitch, but at my age, life sort of blows in so many ways. Every day it’s another indignity. And next year will be worse. The year after that, even worse than that. All you can do is make the best out of a bad situation.

Sure if you have friends of loved ones, it can be real nice. Most of the people you meet day to day, whether they know you or not, are sort of shits. All women of most ages are pretty damn cold. That’s if they don’t openly hate me. A lot of young men in their 20’s are awful damn cold or shitty. Older men, 35+, are usually pretty damn nice. I meet males that age I have never talked to much in my life before…and…guess what? They’re my best friends!

Some women my age are pretty nice, but a lot of them look like shit. Anyone who mostly speaks Spanish is probably pretty cool.

Kids? Just forget it. I wave to them and smile and they don’t even wave back.

I dropped someone off at the homeless shelter the other and drove by the junior high. It was dark. I didn’t want to talk to girls, so I saw three boys. I asked them what the crowd was for, if there had been a game. They told me yes, there had been a basketball game. But one kid acted like there was something terribly wrong with talking to them.

Obviously I was a homosexual child molester who was going to molest their pubescent asses. Don’t mind that I’m not even gay and I don’t fuck guys. It’s still true anyway.

Young women. Ha ha. I’m not even allowed to look at them, much less talk to them. If I smile or wave to them, I get a cold stare of hate back. If I say hi or hello, they act like they’re going to call the police. They’re not all like this, but a lot of them are. Like way too many.

Most of the conversations I try to have with women under age 50 fall flat on their face in some way or another, even if it’s not obvious. Subtly, yeah, it’s true.

I just don’t want to believe you. You talking to someone, right? You want to think this person likes you or this person hates you? I’m anti-paranoid, so interpret most stuff as this person likes me. Which means I overlook a lot of stuff that a paranoid might pick up on. Except it’s dead on true.

Life doesn’t really get older, guys. Have fun when you are young and other humans are still willing to talk to, make friends with you, and date you. Someday if you are lucky you will be my age. Congrats but steel yourself.

I’m not here to bitch but if you’re life is shitty, go ahead and bitch away. If you’re life’s not that shitty, maybe tone it down.

This is it. This is life, boys. And every year from now on, it will just get worse and worse. As they say on the incel boards (and those guys are damned right about a million things), the Age Pill is the hardest pill of all to swallow.

I try to eke some happiness out of life so I don’t say fuck it all and buy it.

See that mixed drink over there next to my computer. That glass is your friend, Bob.

Fuck the world anyway. It’s been my motto my whole adulthood anyway, happy and sad, sunny or the darkest night. Fuck the world. Take that attitude, put it in your head and walk around with it for a day.

Don’t let it get you down. If you think about the implications of it, just laugh. Laugh every time something shitty happens to you. Laugh even harder when something good happens to you. But quit caring. That’s the secret, right there, at your damned fingerprints. All you have to do is take that idea and put it right snug in your head. Don’t worry, it’s a nice fit.

Anyway if you want to try this mind-wear on for a day or so, let me know how it goes. If you’ve already been wearing this mind garment for a long time, congratulations.

Try to have some fun. Do fun things. Do fun things that you like. Don’t do, as in procrastinate, shitty things that are no fun. You do fun things all day and the rest of your life doesn’t mean shit.

Party amidst the ruins.

The Titanic is going down real slow, and you’re on board with everyone else. You have a drink in one hand and a joint in the other. There’s a gorgeous woman on top of your hard cock, bouncing up and down and moaning. You’ll be dead in five minutes, but it doesn’t matter because you’ll die happy.

Which, in case you wish to know, is another prime goal in life. You can’t usually die an interesting death. That’s the ulitmate goal, the home run. But if you can’t, at least die with a smile. That’s right. One of the goals in life is to die with a smile. And your middle finger in the air, flipping off God for this last indignity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why Do I Talk So Much about Black People, Jews, Indians, Etc. on Here?

A lot of people want to know this. The fact is that I am absolutely fascinated by racial issues! And I’m also a race realist for better or for worse. At the very least I would like to point out that at the moment there are some serious behavioral differences among races, ethnic groups, and religious people. I’m not saying what caused it. I’m just saying it’s there.

But you can’t say that nowadays because everyone’s a dindu. Everyone except for straight White men that is. We’re pure evil.

So my task as a race realist is to try to look at race realism (and ethnic, religious and for that matter gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity realism) in a liberal, progressive, or even Leftist light. Now a lot of people would say that’s impossible and that by being a race realist, I am automatically a rightwinger, conservative, reactionary, Rightist, or fascist.

I am absolutely fascinated by Jews! In a way, I am obsessed with them but not in the way that Judeophiles and anti-Semites are. I’m not in either category.

And keep in mind that I was going to convert to Judaism recently! Obviously I’m a huge antisemite if I was going to convert! I had a Jewish girlfriend and I told her I wanted to convert and she was going to help me. I have no idea why I wanted to convert. Probably just to be perverse. Or to stick it to all the idiots screaming antisemite at me.

My Mom was flustered:

Mom: Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Nobody wants to convert to Judaism. If you go to a rabbi and tell him you want to convert, he will look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Why on Earth do you want to be a Jew?” It’s like no sane person would actually want to be a Jew.

Me: I don’t know, Mom. I just want to be a Jew. Xxxxx is Jewish and I want to convert for her. She’s going to help me convert.

Mom: Well, another thing. You’re going to get a lot of prejudice. A lot of people are going to hate you. There will be discrimination. You want to be discriminated against? Why?

Me: I don’t care about discrimination, Mom. A lot people act like they hate me anyway. So not much will change.

(Shakes her head like I’m out of my mind.)

I am also absolutely fascinated by antisemitism. I had no negative feelings towards Jews at all until I was 44, and I started to find out what they were really like. But I had been around them most of my life. Now that I look back, they were pretty typically Jewish, but for some reason that never bothered me at the time.

I was always mystified. “Why on Earth to people hate the Jews?” I simply couldn’t figure it out. We were brought up in this silly Judeophilic family. Both of my parents had grown up with Jews and had many Jewish friends. Every time the subject of Jews came up, my parents acted like they were the greatest thing since Kleenex. They got these huge smiles on their faces, and it was like the Jews were some sort of super-race. Which of course is exactly what Jews think.

I still find antisemitism absolutely fascinating. I still wonder why on Earth people hate Jews. Why did they hate them in the past? Why did they hate them in Europe during World War 2? What did Jews act like back then?

Why were they hated and persecuted in Europe in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Early Middle Ages? Why on Earth did they get thrown out of 109 countries? How did Jews behave back then? What could they possibly have done to get tossed out of nation after nation? I’m baffled.

The antisemites will say it’s because Jews are pure evil. Well, I’m not buying that, sorry.

Everyone else will say that Jews were dindus who dindu nuffin, and everyone just picked on them for no reason at all and scapegoated them when bad times hit. For some reason this doesn’t resonate much with me, though this is the only view you are allowed to have, as it’s the only (((approved view))).

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s been to 109 bars in your city, and he gets thrown out of every bar for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Is he really getting thrown out for no reason at all? Yeah right.

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s lived in 109 cities and towns all over the world, and everywhere he goes, everyone hates him, and they get together and try to throw him out of town for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Yeah right. I’m sure you got thrown out for no reason, dude!

I also find Blacks fascinating. Unfortunately, I am also absolutely fascinated by anti-Black racism. Why do people hate Blacks? What’s the reason?  Its’ fascinating! Why, why, why, why? Racists will say it’s because Blacks are pure evil, but I’m not buying it.

Blacks and antiracists will say it’s because people hate them because they’re different and how they look. I’m not buying that either. Forget it. No one is innocent. Remember when Ronald Biggs said that? He was right.

They will say, like the Jews, that racism against Blacks is so unfathomable that it is basically a mental illness. You’d have to be crazy to hate Black people. The unspoken assumption here is that Black people are dindus who dindu nuffin because if they did do bad things, racism against them wouldn’t be completely insane. See?

Well, that definitely lets Black people off the hook, but I’m not buying it. I’ve been observing racism and racists for much of my life, and I assure you they’re not nuts. Racism is not a mental disorder in any of the DSM’s, though there were efforts by antiracist clinicians to get it into DSM-5. The American Psychiatric Association found this so ridiculous that I don’t believe they even bothered to discuss it.

And they talked about some pretty weird stuff like Hebephilia, a preference for pubescent-aged minors. The APA agreed that Hebephilia was absolutely not a mental disorder. Not only that but they said it wasn’t even abnormal. It was perfectly normal to get aroused by minors of that age. Now if they won’t list Hebephilia for Chrissake, how the Hell are they going to list racism? They’re not, because racists aren’t nuts.

Sure, some crazy people are racists, but it’s not the racism that’s making them nuts. More like the other way around.

Now you might think I am letting racists off the hook, right? Nope, not at all. To me, racism is not a mental illness. It’s not a question of sane vs. crazy. Neither is psychopathy. I don’t buy that psychopaths are nuts either. Forget it.

Instead racism and psychopathy are questions of good versus evil.

Psychopaths aren’t nuts, they’re just bad, or evil if you will. And racists aren’t nuts either. I see racism as a moral question. I believe that true, pure, hardcore racism is bad. It’s like a sin. Racists are acting bad. It’s like a form of evil. It’s not nuts to hate a whole race of humans, but to me it does seem wrong. As in morally wrong.

If you do that, you’re bad. You’re a bad person, at least in a sense. Now a lot of us are bad people to one degree or another. I’m not here to moralfag on people. But it’s better to be more good than bad. And if you are racist, you are being bad in that sense. If you want to be good instead, quit hating whole races.

Now I have no idea why, but Black  people will not accept that racism is a form of evil or bad behavior. Nope, it has to be a form of insanity. This is possibly because if you say racism is bad or evil, it implies that the racist has some valid reason to feel this way, but it’s more that he needs to control himself and act good instead of bad.

The race question in the US, like the Jewish Question, is completely insane. You’re either a hardcore racist where you hate Blacks and think they are evil, in which case you are a White Supremacist, White Nationalist, or just a racist. That seems like a crazy position, and I don’t like to go to boards like that. I don’t like to see all that hate against Blacks. It’s upsetting.

Ok, so overt extreme racism bothers you. Good for you. That means you have to take the other default position, which is that Blacks are dindus, everybody’s always picking on them, and all of the many problems of the Black community are 100% due to White racism and not even 1% the fault of Blacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were true? But it’s not. It’s just not.

Well, those are your two positions.

Pick your poison. I’d like to choose a position halfway in between, sort of the Bill Cosby/Pat Moynihan position. Cosby argues that Black culture is the part of almost all Black problems. Those Blacks who are creating these problems are simply part of a bad culture. This culture causes them to act bad and do bad things.

I’ll go along with that. But if I do, I get tossed out of the second group (antis) and into the first group, the White Supremacists. Who I frankly despise.

So that’s what I am trying to do here. Work out a position on Jews, Blacks, and everyone and everything else that is opposed to the extremism of both the Left and the Right. Call it the Realism position.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Life Is a Shit Test

Boy, I am really on a run with these meaning of life posts, aren’t I? Well, they say the peak of human wisdom is in one’s 60’s. It’s odd that we get less wise as we get beyond 70, but perhaps we are starting to fall apart, and this mandates a whole new set of defenses and lies to oneself. And when you’re lying to yourself all the time (or at least too much of the time), it’s a bit hard to be wise. Wisdom and pathological lying don’t tend to go together.

So no wonder I am plugging into all this meaning of life stuff. I’m stuck right here in the damned age of wisdom.

Just call me sensei, motherfuckers!

I just pointed out that life is a conspiracy theory, at least to some extent.

Well, after that revelation hit me, another flash of God-given epiphany was on its way. After all, one epiphany tends to lead to another, no?

If life is a conspiracy theory, then a corrolary of that must also be true, and that is:

Life is a shit test.

Think about it. Maybe not as a kid. High school’s a shit test for sure, and so is junior high in particular.

Hell, junior high is probably the worst shit test of most of our lives. If you make it through junior high halfway sane and undamaged, thank your lucky stars.

I run into grown adults on a regular basis who are still damaged from childhood. Not from early childhood, and not so much from high school. Yeah, from junior high. Grown men and women in their 20’s and 30’s still seriously damaged from damned junior high of all things! The typical symptom is low self-esteem.

After high school and on to university, oh God, of course that’s a shit test. And venturing out into the cold cruel world of work and survival is the ultimate shit test of them all, probably worse than junior high. After all, your very survival is at stake now. In junior high, you may get killed verbally, psychologically, and spiritually, but most of us tend to survive puberty with at least our physical bodies intact, albeit maybe with a few bruises from getting pummeled by bullies.

Put this idea in your head and walk around with it and see if life makes more sense. Wake up in the morning and look up and the ceiling and say, “Ok, today is another day of the endless shit test called life. Pray I make it through yet another one to the end.”

If this doesn’t resonate with you right away, chew on this idea for a while and see if it makes more sense. You might just find that it fits real nice, hand in glove nice:

Life is a shit test.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Life Is a Conspiracy Theory

Now that I am making meaning of life posts, I thought I would toss this one out there. I’m not sure if it has always been this way, but the only way to analyze much of modern life is via the lens of conspiracy theory. But before you go down that rabbit hole, beware. Much conspiracy theory is out and out absurdity and nonsense, and much of the rest is just wrong. But of the remainder – oh yeah, it definitely seems to be correct.

The explanations of the world, foreign policy in particular, we are given by our government and news media are mostly fake news and propaganda. In order to search for the truth is this disgusting blizzard of lies and bullshit, one must employ conspiracy theory because a lot of the facts of modern life are only explainable for conspiracy theory.

As I’ve gotten deeper and deeper into this explanation of modern life, fake news, and media propaganda, I’ve started to wonder what exactly conspiracy theory encompasses.

For instance, we are now into an era where false flags, fake attacks, and provocations are simply normal. I’m not sure if they’ve always been normal, but it seemed that in the past we didn’t do this as much, but in the last 20 years, it’s been one US-sponsored false flag, fake attack, or provocation after another.

Perhaps this is a symptom of a fading empire lashing out in a wild hail of lies, theft, and cheating. After all, lying, cheating, and stealing is not only the way humans do business and politics, but it’s also part of the toolkit of the desperate man. How many film noir movies do you have to watch to figure that out?

When a man is at the end of his rope, he’s thinking of survival, not getting murdered, staying out of prison, keeping his job, whatever. And all morality tends to go right out the window when faced with avoiding alternatives like that. You can hardly blame a man. But just as a desperate man must be looked at with suspicion, the state equivalent of a desperate man – a fading empire – requires an extremely dubious eye, to say the least.

Anyway, as I chewed this over more and more, I started realizing how deep conspiracy theory seemed to pervade so many things. You would think that the world of business would be immune to this, but you will never see so many devious conspiracies and blizzards of lying, cheating, and stealing as you will see in the world of business and especially corporations.

I am not entirely sure if conspiracy theory pervades human relations that much, but on the other hand, once you figure out that a lot of what  people say and do means something quite a bit different from what they literally say and do, even that starts to make sense.

Human relations are soaked into subterfuge, lying, defenses, and hidden meanings. I spend a good part of my time trying to figure out the hidden meanings in the behavior of my fellow men. I often have to run it by others. Of course, a world where many literal (think “official”) meanings are false and hidden meanings are often true is conspiracy theory in a nutshell.

At some point it hit me. Oh, the Hell with it!

Life itself is a damned conspiracy theory. 

Not completely of course, but enough of it is that this odd aphorism makes sense a lot of the time. Put that idea in your head “life is a conspiracy theory” and go about your daily life. Notice how so many things start making a Hell of a lot more sense when you are plugged into that horrible key to the universe.

At the very least, let’s face it, it’s a damned devious conspiracy to kill us all off when none of either agreed to that fate or wants to die.

In that way, death is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

Death is the last, best practical joke God will ever play on your life.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

“Tonight the Bottle Let Me Down”, Gram Parsons and the Flying Burrito Brothers

“Tonight the Bottle Let Me Down”, Gram Parsons and the Flying Burrito Brothers. Another cover of, yep, a Merle Haggard song, from, once again, Sleepless Nights, 1977. Go back a couple of posts to see the rundown on this album and the sessions in early 1970 that made it up.

I’m a bit of a bottle fan myself I suppose. I take that bottle of hard stuff and cradle it in my arms like a baby. And it calms me down like a babe in arms, just like that. Life’s not easy. Sometimes we need a little help to make it through without grabbing a gun or a handful of pills and buying it ourselves before our time. Better to sip slow, watch the pain fade out, and let nature take it’s cruel course.

And in case you are wondering, yes, I sleep very well at night. A polygraph examiner told me that once after I finished the test. He said, “I think you sleep well at night, don’t you?”

“Yep,” I said. No regrets.

I suppose if someone asks you what the most important thing in life is, you could always say, “To sleep well at night.” To behave well enough that you don’t have much to feel sorry for, or if you don’t, to forgive yourself for whatever transgressions you stumbled into on your way down the road.

Do you sleep well at night? I hope you all do. It’s so important. There are few things worse than insomnia and ill sleep. Pure torture.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Flying Burrito Brothers, “Sing It Back Home”

Flying  Burrito Brothers, “Sing It Back Home”on Sleepless Nights, 1977.

Gram Parsons and the Flying Burritos covering Merle Haggard’s great song. This song was recorded in early 1970 when Gram Parsons was still with the band. The songs on this album were intended to be released for a new album that never got released. Actually these songs were considered to be simple studio dabblings that were never intended for any finished product release.

The Flying Burrito Brothers were one of the greatest bands of the 20th Century, but almost no one has ever heard of them. Their first two albums featured the great Gram Parsons. After that, they fired him and he went on to issue a couple of solo albums before he OD’d on morphine in Joshua Tree National Park in 1973. Dead to soon.

Why do all the best ones leave us too soon? It’s almost as if they are doomed to die young – flash bright like a shooting star and then burn out before 30. What happens? Do they burn too fast? Too fast for life?

A lot of artists are nuts. That’s part of the problem. Art is all tied up in various forms of insanity and lots of artists are crazy in all sorts of ways, in particularly, self-destruction.

No one quite knows why this is, but being an artist is the ultimate anti-Normie act. The artist is giving the finger to the Normie world every minute he is alive and producing great art. He’s a permanent outsider. An outsider’s life is painful, and many artists live lives of intense pain. Perhaps the pain is necessary to produce great art. If we were all perma-happy Pollyanna Normies, what sort of great art would we produce? Anything.

Anyway, life is painful. And it’s not easy. You would think that life would be quite simple, but it’s not. In part this is because we are not completely rational. If I were completely rational, my life would be a lot easier, but instead I’m fucked in the head, so life is a bit of a chore. A happy chore but a chore nevertheless.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

He Wanted a Twin, Or Worse, a Reflection in the Mirror

My mother and father went to UCLA. My Mom for a mere year, my father til graduation. And came back later for a Masters in Counseling, after which he set about for the entire time I knew him demonstrating that he had learned almost nothing from those pounding years of hard core psychology classes. And the books in the world can’t penetrate a brick wall in the head.

I was supposed to go to UCLA, but I was as huge disappointment. I couldn’t pass Algebra 2, even with this Grade-A IQ of mine. Disappointment all around.

Why was I supposed to go there? He went there. What was I supposed to major in? History? Why? That’s what he majored in! What was I supposed to do afterwards? Teach school. Why? That’s what he did! Starting to get the picture? He didn’t want a son. He wanted a junior twin. Worse, an exact replica cutout from the mirror, 35 years too late.

Why do parents do this shameless bullshit? Yeah, I resented it. I’m not your toy or your reflection in the mirror, pal! I’m actually a real human being, separate from you. You know, a separate person, with my very own thoughts, feelings, desires, values, girlfriends, orgasms, bong hits, parties to go to, you name it, guy. I think people like that have an Object Relations problem. A lot of people have this.

Borderlines are notorious. The Borderline cannot see you as an individual person with your own feelings, thoughts, desires, sleep patterns, favorite foods, quirks and gifts, home runs and strikeouts. A lot of personality disorders share this.

This is one of the most important lessons you can learn in life – that others are completely separate from you. It’s painful in a way because we really want others, especially those we love, to be a part of us in a sense – to agree and disagree with us on everything, but it just doesn’t work that way, and thank God for that.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

To Know Thine Own Self Is the Rule

To know thine own is the rule – always know yourself. This is an ancient Greek aphorism, but it may be one of the most important lessons one ever learns about this journey called life. But how many of us ever get there?

SHI: I’d rather have you as a strutting narcissist than a wannabe Incel.

I’m still a strutting narcissist, no wait, someone with high self-esteem. I’m not a wannabe incel. Why would anyone want to be an incel? That would be a volcel anyway. I get the incels though, I get it. All of us men are incel at various times anyway or at least most of us are. Especially bachelor life is notoriously feast or famine.

I’ve been on both sides of this thing, from Alpha all the way down to Omega (which is about where I am nowadays lol), and I can see the whole sexual landscape from here. So it gives you a very nice perspective having seen the whole map and hiked all of the land yourself. Your understand the terrain a lot better.

SHI: Fuck them, you’re not what they are. Don’t have to internalize their problems as your own.

No, they are mostly correct, at least on those things. I have thought about it forever, and yep, they’ve got it down. But really I have known all these things about myself on some level or other for forever now. I know myself pretty well. It’s just that I hide the bad parts of me from myself most of the time because I don’t want to think about that stuff.

You don’t like that I went over the bad parts of me. Hey, that’s ok. But I embrace all of myself, pretty much, and those parts that I think are bad and I want to change I work on all the time. There are other supposedly bad parts of myself that I don’t feel like changing because they’re too much fun.

You are into total self-confidence and always thinking of yourself positively. You don’t want to think negative things about yourself because you think that messes up your Game. Actually it doesn’t if you integrate them well into your psyche and you get ok with your flaws.

I am beyond the age where I need false optimism and denial of my bad side anymore. I wish to know my whole self, good and bad, right and wrong. And I hope to accept it, well, most of it anyway. That way I am a whole person.

SHI: I can understand that you might be having a bit of bad luck phase. It happens to everyone but it’s never forever.

That’s not really true. I’m afraid that this is just the way it is at this age of life. It’s not a real great age, I have to tell you, folks. I mean I like myself just fine still, but apparently that view isn’t widely shared.

I don’t get along with women much at all these days. They pretty much treat me like crap. The young ones almost all do, and a lot of the older ones are not real nice either, or they’ve given up on men altogether. It’s all part of the age and sex dynamic. I guess men my age are simply not very well-liked by women. The best I could hope for would probably be a woman my age. Some of them still like me.

*****

The women who loved me also said many wonderful things about me. The critiques in the other post are some of the things that they told me about myself, some of which shocked me because I didn’t realize I was that way. All of the things I’ve listed were valid judgements at least at the time they were made. I left the BS judgements out.  There have always been some of those from different women.

At different times of my life, girlfriends have criticized other parts of me or more properly ways that I was behaving at that time. I was in a huge rut for a while there, and I am afraid they were correct. But I’ve moved beyond those dark moods of my early adulthood. My 20’s were wild, but they were also rocky. I didn’t list those critiques in my post because I’m not like that anymore, though unfortunately I was like that at the time.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Some Examples of Permanently Flawed Utopian Rules and Laws Under Feminism: Domestic Violence, Assault and Battery, and Statutory Rape

As I have mentioned before a number of times, Female Rule (feminist rule) is always doomed to fail. It’s not so much that it’s evil (though it is a bit evil, especially towards us men) but more that it simply causes chaos. Any attempt to enforce and legislate rules and laws that go against human nature is doomed to cause chaos and eventually fail.

Because Mother Nature bats last, that’s why. She also always gets the last laugh, don’t forget.

Female Rule is failing horribly right now in Sweden, probably the best example of Female Rule on Earth.

The UK is increasingly under Female Rule, and the results seem to be the usual chaos.

The US is increasingly coming under Female Rule, and the result is the usual criminalization of much normal male behavior; increased arrests and jailings of men for simply being men; utopian and often irrational or even grossly unjust, preposterous, and unworkable laws; extreme injustice in divorce courts, etc.

Domestic violence laws are now profoundly unjust. Defend yourself against a physical attack by a woman, and you are going to jail. This law is extremely biased on favor or women and very oppressive to men.

Female Rule has now been extended to conflicts between men, something which women know nothing about. These new laws lack common sense. The ancient rules of Man World – the rules of the “fair fight” – are now gone, and when two men get into a physical fight for any reason, both of them are always going to jail.

This is profoundly unjust but a woman will tell that this is justice! “We can’t figure out who started it,” the woman will say. “So we have to put them both in jail.” Somehow this is just!  Actually it is unbelievable unjust for the man who was defending himself.

Many to most men only act decent primarily or perhaps only because in Man World, if you act aggressive in a number of ways, someone is going to hit you. Punch you in the face. Man World runs on the threat of a punch in the face.

Most men are aware of this, are terrified of other men, and do everything they can to not get penalized. Now women have taken this form of law away from us, when it was one of the main things that held male society together and made it halfway calm and peaceful. Now that the punch in the face penalty will send even the umpire to jail, male society is much more dangerous and chaotic.

Only women would come up with something so insane as to say that a woman who has been drinking alcohol or taking drugs cannot consent to sex. How on Earth can she not consent? Of course she can consent! If this Female Rule law were actually enforced, most men would be jailed within the year.

Only women would come up with the idiotic notion that a teenage girl cannot consent to sex. Except that in most states she can definitely consent to having legal sex with an underage teenage boy. Women will say that somehow this precious flower of Ultimate Purity can consent to have sex with a boy her age (How? I thought she can’t consent?) but somehow, automagically, when he turns 18 or above, she’s not able to consent anymore!

Women will say this is completely logical and just. Of course it’s not. It’s not even sensible. It’s downright preposterous, illogical, and idiotic.

Now, there are reasons that especially older men (say past early 20’s) should be kept away from these girls for both their own good and the good of the girl. I definitely prefer for it to be illegal for me to touch those young girls. I fear for myself if we get rid of the law. And those girls need to be protected from me and especially other men less scrupulous than I. It’s good for us and it’s good for them. It protects us from ourselves and it protects them from us.

But of course those girls can consent! They can consent to have sex with any man of any age, really. I would just like to keep statutory rape illegal to hold up basic societal rules and in order to avoid what looks like excessively exploitative relationships. But not because they can’t consent! What are they? Retarded? Schizophrenic? Deaf, blind and dumb?

I challenge these women to produce a philosophical argument proving that these girls can somehow be unable consent some of the time and yet able to consent at other times.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Fallacy of Feminism: Trying to Create Utopian Universal Justice in an Inherently Unjust World

Female Rule (feminist rule) tries to create universal justice in an inherently unjust world.

Obviously that’s a fool’s errand. Female Rule always tries to rewrite and even criminalize human nature (mostly male nature) because women dislike human nature and especially male nature. They think our natural male behavior sucks, and they want to make it against the law.

Whenever women take power in the world, the first few things they usually do is outlaw pornography, gambling, and alcohol. You know, the three things that keep most of us guys from blowing our brains out.

Women tried to outlaw porn in the West and failed badly. Gambling is becoming legal in the West again. And of course, it was idiot women who were behind the utopian Prohibition which failed so miserably.

The attempt to create Utopia and Universal Justice by ignoring or criminalizing basic human and especially male nature is why Female Rule always seems to fail.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Two Types of Masculism

This blog definitely supports masculism, which is simply support for the normal sexual and non-sexual behaviors of regular, everyday heterosexual men. We don’t think masculinity is toxic. This is a feminist notion that we reject. We  don’t think that male heterosexual sexuality is automatically toxic, dangerous, and needs to be attacked: this is a feminist position.

A lot of you probably don’t know what masculism is. While it holds the potential, like any IP, to be toxic and senseless, there is a good case to be made that normal masculine behavior and normal male heterosexual sexuality are things that should be safeguarded and not attacked as the enemy, which is what the feminists are doing. In that sense, masculism is a valid position.

From Wikipedia:

Christensen differentiates between “progressive masculism” and an “extremist version”. The former welcomes many of the societal changes promoted by feminists, while regretting that some measures reducing sexism against women have increased it against men.

The extremist version promotes male supremacy to some degree and is generally based on a belief in women’s inferiority. Nicholas Davidson, in his book The Failure of Feminism, describes an extremist version of masculism which he termed “virism”: “What ails society is ‘effeminacy’. The improvement of society requires that the influence of female values be decreased and the influence of male values increased…

The more progressive version sounds better to me. I don’t believe in male chauvinism, and I don’t believe that women are inferior. There is definitely a problem of our society in general being taken over by female thinking (feminism), with the result being a mass pussification of American “men,” most of whom have become the equivalent of gender traitors.

I also don’t believe that society should be run on the basis of female thinking. It’s too chauvinist and irrational to serve as philosophical basis for society and its laws, mores, and rules. Female Rule doesn’t work, sorry. I’m not sure how many times we have to prove this until people start believing it.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Dirk Vanderbeke (Greifswald), “Vineland in the Novels of John Barth and Thomas Pynchon” 

Although this text is copywritten, the Internet page on which it was posted has been taken down and is only accessible via the Wayback Machine, so I think I am in the clear as far as copyright it concerned.

If you are wondering, this is the sort of thing I read for fun. That’s right, for kicks. I read this stuff because I love Literature and even literary criticism but I also do so as a way to exercise my mind because modern literary criticism is one of the few types of nonfiction that I still find very difficult to read.

Most of the things that I post here about – psychology, sociology, foreign policy, domestic policy, political economics, gender studies, race realism, etc. – are often a result of reading I have done. However, the reading involved in any of the fields above is typically not very challenging to me. I can just wolf it right down. It’s often very interesting but it’s not like it’s hard to figure out.

Now when we get into Linguistics and literary criticism, it’s a whole new ballgame. I read Linguistics because it’s my field, but I also do so to exercise my brain because a lot of the Linguistics I read is pretty hard to understand. So it’s a brain workout.

And I read literary criticism not only because I love literature but because modern literary criticism is often very hard to read and understand.

In part this is due to the way it is written – nowadays, it’s all based on critical theory with all of the postmodernism and post-structuralism that implies. Names like Derrida, Lacan, Foucalt, etc. are tossed about – and these Frenchman are hard if not impossible for anyone to understand.

In fact, one criticism of them (see Noam Chomsky) is that what they writing simply makes no sense at all. I would throw in Slavoj Zizek here for good measure. I don’t think he makes sense at all.

So quite a bit of the time, literary criticism doesn’t make much sense because that’s the general idea – it’s not supposed to make sense. A lot of the time I think even the authors don’t even understand what their own articles are going on about.

One annoyance is repetitive themes running through all of this: the blurring of boundaries, borders, meaning, and the divide between the world of the self and the external world of perception and representation.

Another theme seems to be the difficulty or impossibility of finding any true meaning in much of anything or the idea that meaning is personal in any text, has no firm definition, and is instead derived via the particular personal interpretation of the reader himself.

This last theme is actually interesting in a way, even if these folks take it way too far. But that is the subject of another post.

As you can see, the themes above are all the usual obsessions of postmodernism. But I tire of reading about this theme. Sometimes it seems like all modern literary criticism is telling the same story and that is reiterating the themes above. It gets old after a while.

Isn’t there anything else we can derive from reading modern literature but the claustrophobic themes above? It seems to be a lack of imagination on the part of literary critics that they have boxed themselves in like this, not to mention that it makes a lot of modern literary criticism quite boring.

I’ve recently read quite a bit of literary criticism as a brain workout, if you will. Most of it did not seem appropriate for a repost here, as it was hard for me to understand and for sure it’s going to be hard for you all to understand. But this essay was pretty much intelligible to me, and it ought to be understandable to most of you all too.

Whether or not you are into literary criticism and these two authors is another matter. But you might want to dip into it just for a brain workout anyway, as it deals with a lot of concepts that are not easy at all to grasp.

The two authors here are Thomas Pynchon and John Barth.

Pynchon’s books are few – nine.

I have read all five of these, and they’re all great:

V.
The Crying of Lot 49
Gravity’s Rainbow
Vineland
Slow Learner

I have not yet read these four:

Mason & Dixon
Against the Day
Inherent Vice
Bleeding Edge

Which is most of the later stuff. I have read excerpts of the first two, in particular Mason & Dixon, but I haven’t read the whole books. I’ve read very little of Against the Day, Inherent Vice, and Bleeding Edge. Mason & Dixon and Against the Day are supposed to be awesome.

Barth has written many more books than Pynchon – 18. 12 of those are said to be very good. The rest are more up in the air.

I have read the following book:

The Sot-Weed Factor

It’s very long – 756 pages – but it’s great!

The Floating Opera
The End of the Road
Giles Goat-Boy
Lost in the Funhouse
Chimera
Letters
Sabbatical: A Romance
The Tidewater Tales
The Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor
Once Upon a Time: A Floating Opera
On with the Story
Coming Soon!!!
The Book of Ten Nights and a Night
Where Three Roads Meet
The Development
The Friday Book
Further Fridays
Final Fridays

The Floating Opera, The End of the Road, Giles Goat-Boy, Lost in the Funhouse, Chimera, Letters, Sabbatical, The Tidewater Tales, Once Upon a Time: A Floating Opera, The Development, The Friday Book, and Final Fridays are all supposed to be very good.

Let me know if you want me to run more stuff like this or if you think this is a huge waste of time. If you are into literature, you might want to read stuff like this simply as a brain workout if you are into such exercizes.

Dirk Vanderbeke (Greifswald)

Vineland in the Novels of John Barth and Thomas Pynchon (1)

At the end of the first chapter of Thomas Pynchon’s novel The Crying of Lot 49, the heroine Oedipa Maas is reminded of a trip to Mexico with her former and now late lover Pierce Inverarity.

In Mexico City they somehow wandered into an exhibition of paintings by the beautiful Spanish exile Remidios Varo: in the central painting of a triptych, titled “Bordando el Manto Terreste”, were a number of frail girls with heart-shaped faces, huge eyes, spun-gold hair, prisoners in the top room of a circular tower, embroidering a kind of tapestry which spilled out the slit windows and into a void, seeking hopelessly to fill the void: for all the other buildings and creatures, all the waves, ships, and forests of the Earth were contained in this tapestry, and the tapestry was the world. (Pynchon 1967, 10)

If you imagine a tapestry spreading out from a single point, you will get something approaching the shape of a wavy V, the letter which is of crucial importance in the novels of Thomas Pynchon.

If Mexico City is chosen as the starting point of this image, the shape of the wavy V may come to resemble the North American continent, and it may be useful to keep in mind that it was Central America where the first concepts of the New World were formed.

Vanderb (2).gif (2326 Byte)

And if you finally travel along the branching lines of the V up to 40° of latitude, you will come to Vineland: i.e. the actually existing town of Vineland, New Jersey in the East and the fictional city and county of Vineland in the West.

When Pynchon’s novel Vineland was published in 1990, the initial V. served to some extent as a trademark of the obscure author, and after 17 years of silence since Gravity’s Rainbow, expectations were running high. But many of the reviewers were rather disappointed at first (cf. Keesey 1990; Hawthorne 1992, 77). 

The title suggested some historical depth, a concern with the origin of America, and possibly an evocation of another American dream, the mythological ‘Vinland the Good’, which never had to face the reality of history and thus could remain in a prelapsarian state. Yet there is less historical interest in the actual book than in any of Pynchon’s previous novels.

The text hardly ever leaves the time-frame experienced by its readers, i.e. the few decades since the 60’s; only occasionally are there some brief reminiscences about the strikes and labor movements of the 30’s or the anticommunist witch hunt of the 50’s. And the only mythology mentioned in the text is the lore of the Yuroks, the Native Americans of the Vineland area.

Still, some attempts were made to link the fictional Vineland of the novel with the Vinland of the Vikings:

As a distant, romanticized land, Vinland connoted refuge, a haven after the harrowing crossing of the Atlantic. Pynchon’s Vineland is also a refuge where fantasy, or at least the ignoring of reality, can shape a girl’s education, keeping her from knowing the secrets of her mother, but it is a refuge surrounded and finally invaded by reality.

Vinland became identified with Thule, the White Island or Blessed Islands of Western mythology; likewise, Vineland is associated with Tsorrek because it stands at the mouth of the river that, according to Yurok geography, flows from the land of the living to the land of the dead. (Hawthorne, 77)

I will later come back to the mythical river of the dead, but for the moment I would like to suggest that this kind of analogy is rather forced – the ‘Blessed Islands’ do not really resemble the grim image of Tsorrek.

Another critic wrote:

Vineland sets its dreary depiction of contemporary reality against former utopian dreams of what America might one day become. Although the title refers to the novel’s setting in the fictional (but realistic) town of Vineland, California, it also evokes the name given America by the Vikings, a name that conveys a sense of abundance and promise.

The New World as a whole originally functioned in the European psyche as a locus of hopeful idealism. […] But the cruelty with which … [the] conquistadors subdued the native population of Mexico anticipates Pynchon’s suggestion in Vineland that the American dream has become a nightmare. (Booker 1992, 7)

The sudden shift from Leif Erikson’s idealized Vinland to the Spanish conquest in the quotation above blends two images of the New World which are not so easily reconciled. After all, even in the earliest Spanish accounts of America, the utopian dream was frequently balanced by its opposite, the dystopian nightmare, and the arcadian garden was also supposed to be inhabited by a multitude of monsters and man-eating savages.

I also doubt that Pynchon suggests that the American dream has become a nightmare – all his novels and especially his latest book Mason and Dixon indicate that history has lately been ‘a nightmare from which he is trying to awake’.

But the setting of the novel in the year 1984 certainly does suggest a dystopian view of contemporary America and thus the Vineland region, a dwelling place of marijuana farmers, old hippies, and large sections of the counter culture, may very well indicate the other America which is now under siege, the land of myth and eternal childhood.

But Pynchon’s novel is far too ambiguous to offer us a simplistic alternative of a better world, even if this world is eventually doomed to fail and succumb to the evil forces of Reaganite persecution.

His Vineland is a complex web of intertextual references and hidden allusions, and I want to suggest that one of the most important texts in this context is John Barth’s novel The End of the Road, which is partly set in Vineland, New Jersey – Barth’s title would, of course, be a very suitable subtitle for all of Pynchon’s novels.

Vineland, New Jersey, was, by the way, the site of a utopian community in the 19th century based on strictly teetotal regulations. The fact that Pynchon’s Vineland is rather the last refuge for dope heads and the grass-growing segment of American agriculture may tie in with concepts of complementarity in his earlier novels.(2) And maybe the oversized grapes of the mythical Vinland were simply translated into modern modes of intoxication.

The End of the Road, published in 1958, explores the human condition in terms of freedom, choice, and motivation. I suppose that it will not be necessary to outline the plot of the novel; for the purpose at hand, a brief summary of the basic situation will suffice.

At the chronological beginning of the novel, the hero, Jacob Horner, does not sit in the corner as in the well-known nursery rhyme but instead sits on a bench at Pennsylvania Railway Station in Baltimore, and he is completely paralyzed not because of some kind of bodily handicap or ailment but because he simply cannot find any reason to move.

Having asked at the ticket window for possible destinations he might reach with his money, he takes a seat to make up his mind.

And it was there that I simply ran out of motives, as a car runs out of gas. There was no reason to go to Cincinnati, Ohio. There was no reason to go to Crestline, Ohio. Or Dayton, Ohio; or Lima, Ohio. There was no reason, either, to go back to the apartment hotel, or for that matter to go anywhere. There was no reason to do anything.

My eyes, as Winckelmann said inaccurately of the eyes of the Greek statues, were sightless, gazing on eternity, fixed on ultimacy, and when that is the case there is no reason to do anything – even to change the focus of one’s eyes. (Barth 1988; hereafter quoted as ER).

The plurality of possibilities has led to an impasse because the alternatives offered carry no intrinsic value. If everything is ultimately the same, there is no basis and no reason for choice.

Jacob Horner remains in the grip of paralysis, like Buridan’s ass locked in its state of indecision, until the next day he is observed by an obscure, nameless Black doctor who specializes in cases of psychological paralysis and takes him to a remobilization farm. The farm is situated in Vineland, New Jersey.

This choice of location in a novel of mainly fictitious places may be taken as an indication that America and the American dream are at stake and that the therapies offered or rather prescribed bear some significance for the American condition.(3)

The most important and striking feature of all the quite unusual therapies mentioned is that they do not even try to touch upon the causes of psychological paralysis  – all they deal with are the symptoms of a state of mind which is more or less taken for granted.

Among the therapies offered there are Agapotherapy or Devotional Therapy, Sexual Therapy, Conversational Therapy, Virtue and Vice Therapy, Philosophical Therapy, Theotherapy and Atheotherapy, all of which are basically methods by which one may choose between different modes of action without the necessity of an individual evaluation of the possibilities at hand.

The doctor states that “Choosing is existence” (ER 77), and in this claim we may detect a faint echo of the credo of democracy and a celebration of the ultimate achievement of freedom in the proverbial land of unlimited possibilities, but the principle of choice is re-qualified as an absurd ritual, vital but meaningless:

[D]on’t let yourself get stuck between alternatives, or you’re lost… If the alternatives are side by side, choose the one on the left; if they are consecutive in time, choose the earlier.

If neither of these applies choose the alternative whose name begins with the earlier letter of the alphabet. These are the principles of Sinistrality, Antecedence, and Alphabetical Priority – there are others, and they are arbitrary, but useful. (ER 80f.)

The French equivalent of Jacob Horner, the hero of René Clair’s La Princess de Chine, organizes his life on the basis of similar modes of selection in an extensive game on probability. In Barth’s novel, the ability to choose remains a sine qua non of existence even after the evaluation of alternatives has long lost its relevance.

Jacob Horner’s paralysis is the result of an ultimate lack of ego, he is simply a person without a personality. His emblem is a small statue of Laokoön, immobilized, the mute mouth opened in a silent scream. The doctor’s solution to Horner’s problem is Mythotherapy, the willful selection of a role-model as the prototype for one’s own life and every process of decision-making.

Mythotherapy is based on two assumptions: that human existence precedes human essence, if either of the two terms really signifies anything; and that a man is free not only to choose his own essence but to change it at will. Those are both good existentialist premises, and whether they’re true or false is of no concern to us – they’re useful in your case. (ER 82, italics in the original)

The philosophical principle ‘Know thyself’ is thus undermined by the realization that there is no self to be known, that there are only multitudes of masks to conceal the essential emptiness. The American ideal of the self-made man takes an almost Lacanian twist where the “self” is “made” by prefabricated roles, and the life story precedes the life it will narrate.

It is made quite clear that Mythotherapy is not simply the cure for Jacob’s state of mind but the general mode of human existence, and that paralysis is rather the result of not being able to participate in Mythotherapy any longer.

In consequence, all the characters of the novel are occasionally observed in the process of donning and doffing their masks. In fact, it seems as if Barth in his novel had anticipated Michel Foucault’s diagnosis of the selves as the difference of masks (cf. Foucault 1974, 131).

Thus the question for motivation leads to an infinite regress, as every action can be traced back to an earlier choice of the role to which the function of decision-making was assigned.

When Jacob Horner commits adultery with his only friend’s wife, the attempt to analyze this act, to attribute motive to a deed done, will lead to catastrophe.

As neither of the characters in question is able to account for any intentions which motivated the act or to define the infinitesimally small change in atmosphere which ultimately led to the considerable result, the only mode of investigation seems to consist in a forced and increasingly reluctant repetition, which leads to pregnancy, which leads to abortion, which leads to death.

The concept that each life is based on a story and that the story precedes life must take into account that each story ends with the final period and that human life follows the law of diminishing possibilities.

It might be possible to take the development of the plot as a kind of analogy to the butterfly effect of chaos theory, i.e. a minor shift in initial conditions leads to major effects, but then novelists knew about this long before scientists began to investigate the phenomenon.

The ill-fated abortion is performed by the nameless doctor in Vineland.

It is preceded by a kind of Faustian pact in order to gain the doctor’s agreement, but in accordance with the basic lack of human essence proclaimed throughout the novel, Jacob Horner does not have to trade his dubitable soul but his future life – he agrees to become the property of the doctor, to follow him as a living case study when the farm is moved to a new location – the remobilization farm turns out to be the most mobile element in the novel.

On the last page, Jacob Horner is taking a taxi to the railway station to meet the doctor. Beginning and end are reversed in the image of the railway station, i.e. the starting point of endlessly bifurcating paths but at the same time the final destination of all those paths. This image will return in the mythology of the other Vineland on the West Coast.

But in a sense the story of Jacob Horner begins and ends in Vineland at the remobilization farm, where initially unlimited though meaningless possibilities are offered, except they lead back to the same place and to the loss of any choice.

The American dream of liberty, of mobility, of the eternal frontier, has been replaced by arbitrariness, chance, mindless motion, and ultimately by paralysis and death, the last word of the novel being “terminal” – I do not think it will be necessary to elaborate on the double meaning.

In Pynchon’s Vineland some of the elements of The End of the Road are re-investigated. Again I do not think that it will be necessary to give an outline of the plot; as a matter of fact, this would be quite impossible, as the novels of Thomas Pynchon do not yield to any kind of summary.

Let it suffice that the novel is based on the quest of a young girl, Prairie Wheeler, for her mother, Frenesi, who in the 60’s had originally been a member of a radical film crew but crossed the lines and for some time became the lover and instrument of the evil principle of the novel, the DA Brock Vond. As in The End of the Road, the novel begins and ends in Vineland, but it is Vineland, California, and 30 years have passed.

Again, Vineland marks an end of the road, and in a sense one might say that Vineland is the last frontier of an expanding and colonizing America.

Someday this would be all part of a Eureka – Crescent City – Vineland megalopolis, but for now the primary sea coast, forest, riverbanks, and bay were still not much different from what early visitors in Spanish and Russian ships had seen.

Along with noting the size and fierceness of the salmon, the fogbound treachery of the coast, the fishing villages of the Yurok and Tolowa people, log keepers not known for their psychic gifts had remembered to write down, more than once, the sense they had of some invisible boundary, met when approaching from the sea … (Pynchon 1990, 317; hereafter quoted as Vl)

This almost mythical land has become the last refuge for the remains of the American counterculture of the 60’s, eternal hippies as well as labor movement activists, but it is under siege from the lumber industry on the one hand and from CAMP, i.e. the Campaign Against Marijuana Production, on the other hand.

In consideration of Pynchon’s rather obvious bias for the failed revolution of the 60’s and the identification of evil with the Reagan administration and especially every kind of law enforcement, this could lead to the simple understanding that Vineland resembles Vinland the Good, that good and evil are easily distinguished in the novel and in politics in general, and that mind-expanding drugs may offer a new vision of the American dream.

As a matter of fact, one of the leaders of the 60’s in the novel, later to be assassinated, is called Weed Atman, which might be translated into ‘marijuana smoke’. But things are not so easy in Pynchon’s novels.

If possible, psychological involvement with Mythotherapy has taken leaps since The End of the Road. But while the doctor’s prescriptions were chiefly based on the classical role models of Western tradition or even on narrative functions as described by structuralist patterns, we now encounter distinct voices and gestures taken directly from the ever-present television, the capitalized Tube.

In George Orwell’s 1984 the telescreen serves as the ubiquitous instrument of control because it can monitor each and every move. In Vineland’s America of 1984 this has proven to be quite unnecessary because each and every move is motivated by the images and characters observed on the screen.

The vision of the American dream has been replaced by television, and the question of good and evil has been blurred by the fact that every story needs its villain, no matter whether the villain is the outlaw or the cop.

When Prairie’s father is confronted by an old-time acquaintance from the police who is still after him, the conversation turns into a fast game of impersonations, with the law enforcement officer humming the tune from Meet the Flintstones and alternately imitating Clint Eastwood and Skipper from Gilligan’s Island.

As one result of this impact of the media, the generation gap tends to close. The world of Vineland is marked by a culture of reruns and thus also by a ritualized and quite literal déjà vu, as each childhood is largely structured by the tubal input which remains constantly retrievable ever after.

Children and adults are thus shaped by the same experience in which the past and the present are to some extent fused – the endless repetition creates a kind of timelessness.

As a matter of fact, a childhood which is extended into adult life was one of the significant features in the culture of the Yuroks, the native Americans of the Vineland region (cf. Becke & Vanderbeke 1992, 63-76), and it might be of interest here that one of the standard texts on Childhood in America contains a chapter on the Yuroks and was written by Erik Erikson (4) – the surname should ring a bell in the context of Vineland.

Pynchon’s Vineland features an equivalent to the clinic in The End of the Road, but it is no longer concerned with those who are unable to participate in Mythotherapy, it rather deals with patients who have developed some televisionary addiction, it is a “dryin’-out place for Tubefreeks” (Vl 33).

The name of this clinic is one of Pynchon’s typical acronyms: the abbreviation of the ‘National Endowment for Video Education and Rehabilitation’ spells NEVER, and like the Neverland of Peter Pan or Michael Jackson, it is a place for those who are unwilling or unable to grow up.

But it is not only the personal of Vineland that is obsessed with the new media, the text itself occasionally reads like a complicated version of Trivial Pursuit’s silver screen edition. The novel contains about 300 names, and disregarding the characters of the novel, by far the largest group of them consists of real or fictional characters associated with the new media.

As a result, the reading process occasionally turns into an extended excursion into pop culture, but there is a catch. Once you have achieved a complete understanding of all the allusions, you yourself will have turned into a potential patient of the rehabilitation center for addicts of tubal abuse.

And finally, reality itself seems to have been infused with the fantasies of the screen. All of Pynchon’s novels call for a heavy dose of willing suspension of disbelief, and quite regularly, the most unbelievable elements are actually taken from life. But here the fantastic element is almost completely an extension of television’s virtual reality into the world of Vineland.

The Thanatoids, a group of reproachful revenants who try to obtain recompense for wrongs done to them while alive, are, for example, quite obviously descendants of George A. Romero’s living dead, and when a Japanese Research and Development laboratory is flattened by a size 20,000 foot, we simply know that it was an act of God or Godzilla.

The world is constantly being told and retold on the screen until the narrative claims priority over the world itself. In terms of the image of the girls who weave the world in TCoL49, in Vineland the tapestry of the world has turned into video tape.

The ritualized cultural experience based on repetition, the dependence on pre-fashioned role models in any attempt to cope with an increasingly complex world, and especially the interaction of reality with the virtual reality of a prevailing narrative mode which is distinctly illiterate mark a cultural situation which bears some resemblance to mythical ways of worldmaking. America has to some extent returned to its origins.

This world is ruled by the members of a remote power elite – Brock Vond calls them the “Real Ones” (Vl 276) just as H. P. Lovecraft refers to the “Great Old Ones” or the “Ancient Ones.” Their will is carried out by the computer, an instrument of control which has turned into a symbol of arbitrariness, incomprehensible but unquestionable processes of decision-making, and a metaphor for a cruel and despotic God.

When Prairie’s mother Frenesi and her husband are quite suddenly dropped from the government’s pay list and their bank accounts are canceled, she starts to hum to a sort of standard gospel tune:

We are digits in God’s computer (…) and the only thing we’re good for, to be dead or to be living, is the only thing He sees. What we cry, what we contend for, in our world of toil and blood, it all lies beneath the notice of the hacker we call God. (Vl 91)

The computer has assumed the role of former mythical deities, granting or withholding the flow of modern forms of sustenance, i.e. money, in the same way in which the local gods granted or withheld the return of the salmon.

The novel opens with a ritualized annual performance by Prairie’s father: once a year he has to jump through the closed window of a public building to prove his mental instability and also his obedience to the powers that be, and he is rewarded for this act with a monthly mental disability check.

The story of Vineland follows Joseph Campbell’s well-known pattern of the quest for the mythical hero’s – or in this case heroine’s – origin. The time frame is cyclical rather than linear, and both the beginning and the end are marked by annual happenings, the beginning by Zoyd Wheeler’s autodefenestration and the end by a yearly family reunion which seems to embrace all segments of the American counterculture.

This counterculture has lost the revolutionary momentum of the 60’s. In fact, the anticipation of a better society has given way to a nostalgic remembrance of times past; the utopian dream has taken a regressive twist. America scorns its intellectuals, and the development of the political Left seems to prove the point.

According to Pynchon’s assessment of the last decades, large sections of the former Left have turned to a new irrationalism and the eclecticism of the so-called New Age philosophy. The movement of the 60’s, which never excelled in excessive coherence, has further dissolved into a heterogeneous mass of solipsistic and interchangeable ideologies.

In Vineland these include the usual forms of radical vegetarianism and mysticism but also the clinic for karmic readjustment and the Sisterhood of Kunoichi Attentives. But in one way or another all segments seem to be connected with Vineland, and they all turn up at the annual reunion of a Pan-American family in the Vineland region. In the course of this reunion, American history is ritually retold as an endless succession of persecution and the abuse of power:

…grandfolks could be heard arguing the perennial question of whether the United States still lingered in a prefascist twilight, or whether that darkness had fallen long stupefied years ago, and the light they thought they saw was coming only from millions of Tubes all showing the same bright-colored shadows. One by one, as other voices joined in, the names began – some shouted, some accompanied by spit, the old reliable names good for hours of contention, stomach distress, and insomnia – Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Mafia, CIA, Reagan, Kissinger, that collection of names and their tragic interweaving that stood not constellated above in any nightwide remoteness of light, but below, diminished to the last unfaceable American secret, to be pressed, each time deeper, again and again beneath the meanest of random soles, one black fermenting leaf on the forest floor that nobody wanted to turn over, because of all that lived virulent, waiting, just beneath. (Vl 371)

In Barth’s novel, Vineland offered a cure for paralysis, but the cure did not include a return to a meaningful evaluation of different possibilities – it was based on arbitrariness and chance.

In Pynchon’s Vineland all the decisions seem to have taken a bad turn, and American history reads like a long list of wrong roads taken. The final failure of utopian ideals was established once the screen dominated the scene. The diagnosis is announced by an adolescent violence freak:

Whole problem ‘th you folks’s generation … is you believed in your Revolution, put your lives right out there for it – but you sure didn’t understand much about the Tube. Minute the Tube got hold of you folks that was it, that whole alternative America, el deado meato, just like th’ Indians, sold it all to your real enemies, and even in 1970 dollars – it was way too cheap… (Vl 373)

America, the seemingly most advanced society, has relapsed into a quasi-mythical mode, and Original Sin is endlessly repeated in every instance of giving in or selling out to the agents of power – in fact, with every use of the remote control, the term carries a very precise double meaning in this context.

The area of Vineland may be a last refuge for the other America, but it has long succumbed to the American way of life in the age of mass media. It may be of interest here that the name of Prairie Wheeler fuses both aspects of America: the old and the new, the primordial and virgin American landscape and the intrusion of the railroad or, using Leo Marx’s image, the machine and the garden.

In addition, the seductive power of order is working on the last inhabitants of the happy enclave. In Orwell’s 1984 there was a catch:

If there is hope, wrote Winston it lies in the proles. (…) (Orwell 1972, 59)

But:

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious. (ibid., 60)

In Vineland‘s 1984 the paradox reads: If there is hope it lies in the hippies, the anarchists, and especially the children. But until they organize they can never succeed, and once they begin to organize, they have changed sides.(5) But even more important: behind every act of revolt there lurks the wish for a return to the equilibrium of order (6):

Brock Vond’s genius was to have seen in the activities of the Sixties Left not a threat to order but unacknowledged desires for it. While the tube was proclaiming youth revolution against parents of all kinds, and most viewers were accepting the story, Brock saw the deep … need only to stay children forever, safe inside some extended national Family. (Vl 269)

All this seems to indicate the necessity of doom, the ultimate failure of each and every hope for individuality and the salvation of the American dream. But Pynchon ends his novel with an unexpected twist. The mythical landscape of the Native Americans itself succeeds and overcomes the forces of evil, if only temporarily.

On the last pages, the villain is led to the land of no return – to Tsorrek – the Yurok version of Styx, the river of the dead. The road to Tsorrek can open anywhere, i.e. all roads finally lead to the same destination, and so many have walked this road that it is trodden deep into the earth.

The familiar image of time as a garden of branching paths, i.e. of endless possibilities, is turned into its opposite, an image of the irreversible processes leading to death. The question of general history is replaced by the inevitable conclusion of life.

With the death of the villain, the book may end on an unfamiliarly happy note (at least in the context of Pynchon’s novels), but this is balanced by the rather grim image of the unhappy hereafter, which after all seems to be a place in Arcadia.

 

Notes

(1) The ‘Pynchon-part’ of this paper is to some extent a revised version of aspects already touched upon in a paper I read at the Alte Schmiede, Wien in 1994, published as “Thomas Pynchon’s V, oder: Wie man einen Buchstaben erzählt”, in: Strukturen erzählen, Hrsg. Herbert J. Wimmer, Wien 1996. (back)

(2) In The Crying of Lot 49, for instance, we find the names Tristero and Hilarius, one being the incarnation of the entropic forces in nature and society, the other a psychoanalyst who started his career in a German concentration camp and is thus ultimately associated with the forces of order.

But the names allude to Giordano Bruno’s motto for his play Candelaio “In tristitia hilaris: in hilaritate tristis” and thus to the concept of the coincidentia oppositorum – and, as a matter of fact, Tristero and Hilarius do each – like yin and yang – contain elements of the opposing principle, and they both lead to the same reaction, i.e. paranoia. (back)

(3) In the discussion at the conference it was suggested that the doctor’s existentialist background may put Europe rather than America under attack in Barth’s novel. This is certainly a valid point, America is heavily influenced by European philosophy in The End of the Road.

But the text does not offer any alternative. Joe Morgan, complementary counterpart to the doctor and all-American scoutmaster, definitely takes part in the game of impersonations. The rules established by the doctor in Vineland govern each and every character of the novel, they define the American condition. (back)

(4) I am grateful for Hartmut Lutz’s remark in the discussion of this paper that Erikson’s account of the Yuroks bears little resemblance to reality. Pynchon’s allusions to the Yuroks are chiefly references to Yurok mythology, still the importance of a prolonged adolescence in Vineland seems to indicate that Erikson’s book and its claim of ‘infantile attitudes’ preserved within Yurok culture may have served as a source for the novel. (back)

(5) This problem recurs frequently in Pynchon’s texts, it is of crucial importance in his short story “The Secret Integration” and it leads to the ultimate failure of the ‘Counterforce’ in Gravity’s Rainbow.(back)

(6) Anne Hegerfeldt has reminded me of the fact that in nature there is, of course, no equilibrium of order but only equilibrium of disorder. I would like to maintain though, that in Pynchon’s novels there is a tendency towards order and that the entropic process is reversed in his depiction of human history and society. (back)

Works Cited

Barth, J., The Floating Opera and The End of the Road, New York 1988.

Becke, R. & Vanderbeke, D., “Chants of Dispossession and Exile: The Yuroks in Vineland“, in: Pynchon Notes 30-31, spring – fall 1992, pp. 63-76.

Booker, M.K., “Vineland and Dystopian Fiction”, in: Pynchon Notes, No 30-31, spring – fall 1992, pp. 5-38.

Foucault, M., The Archaeology of Knowledge, London 1974.

Hawthorne, M.D., “Imaginary Locales in Pynchon’s Vineland“, in: Pynchon Notes, No 30-31, spring – fall 1992, pp. 77-90.

Keesey, D., “Vineland in the Mainstream Press: A Reception Study”, in: Pynchon Notes, No 26-27, spring – fall 1990, pp. 107-113.

Orwell, G., 1984, Harmondsworth 1972.

Pynchon, Th., The Crying of Lot 49, New York 1967.

—–, Vineland, Boston 1990.

Acknowledgements
“Vineland in the Novels of John Barth and Thomas Pynchon” was first read at the Conference: The Viking Connection: Canada – Continentalist Perspectives (Greifswald 1996), and then published in Informal Empire? Cultural Relations Between Canada, the United States and Europe (Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Kanada-Studien an der Universität Trier, Bd. 8); ed. Peter Easingwood, Konrad Groß and Hartmut Lutz, Kiel, l&f Verlag, 1998, S. 415-427. It is reprinted here by kind permission of the editors.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most Humans Engage in at Least a Fair Amount of Hypocrisy

Jason: Childish thinking infects all races – and in fact, as noted in @Robert Lindsay’s article, is a main characteristic of “identity politics” – including the White kind.

One example is making fun of people but not being able to take “being made fun of”.

Dual morality:

It’s ok for me to do it, but it’s not ok for you to do it. I hate to say it but most people act this way. Even the people I most love in my life act like this.

I think there are a few people who are decent enough to not act like this. Your best friends won’t act like this, at least not around you anyway. And I’ve had some girlfriends who, I must admit, didn’t really engage in this hypocritical behavior because they thought it was beneath them. Then again, I’ve had quite a few girlfriends who excelled at this bullshit.

This thinking is associated with diminished self-awareness, which is probably just a huge dose of Denial, plus Denial’s twin, Projection,  in which other people blame you for doing the bad things that they do but are too proud to admit to. This is a basic human defense system that you see every day.

I don’t mind Denial so much, though it can be fatal. You are at an outdoor dinner party in Africa, cocktail in your hand. You see an elephant charging the party a ways away. No one can hear it yet, but there it is, heading right towards your happy gathering.

You turn around and say, “Elephant? I don’t see any elephant,” and go back to your merry ways. For a short while anyway – until you are stomped to death. But hey, it was worth it, right? You got the pleasure of denying that something terrible was about to happen to you along with the sense of relief that that generated.

Projection is a much more nasty defense, but it is extremely common. In mental health we call this one of the primitive defenses. These defenses are often used by children. Everyone keeps using them as adults, but a mature person is supposed to use them less often.

Projection is nasty stuff. You do a bad thing, but you are so gutless and pathetic that your weak ego can’t admit that you do it, but you feel guilt anyway (even subconsciously) that you have to deal with because it makes you uncomfortable, so you diffuse this guilt by projecting it off onto someone else. “I don’t do this lousy thing; other people do!”

This sort of hypocrisy seems to be programmed right into the human race. In a sound bite, humans are selfish. Human selfishness probably boils down to simple survival thinking. If you don’t usually put yourself first, pretty soon you will end up dead. No matter what, you and your survival always come first. It is folly to think otherwise.

Selfish thinking generates the dual morality and hypocrisy cited above. Further, all tribes are extremely hypocritical. In fact hypocritical thinking is typical of all tribes. That’s why tribalism, including its modern variant, Identity Politics, is so poisonous.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Basic Law of Human Beings

Polar Bear: Black women basically operate on jungle law. I have seen it with old model blacks even. If an injustice favors them personally, they are all for it. A White Dudley Do Right will demand equality for his coworkers at his own expense. A house slave will be harder on her fellow slaves because only master butters her bread.

I don’t think this is particular to Black women. Blacks period seem to operate on this crude calculus.

And in fairness to Blacks, most groups are like this. Why do you think Identity Politics is so nasty and toxic? Because that’s what IP supporters are like – all IP movements support any injustices against the enemy group that benefits the identity group in question. SJW’s aren’t really about justice at all.

They’re for injustice as much as they are for injustice. Most SJW’s believe we need to commit injustices against certain bad groups to benefit certain good  groups. That’s not exactly justice if you ask me. It’s just sheer vengeance and retaliation.

Feminists are like this, and most women support these feminist injustices that harm men but help women.

I think most ethnic groups feel this way too, but I am having a bit of a hard time proving that at the moment.

Also, Whites supported injustices against other groups for many years on the basis that it was good for us. This whole thing of Whites turning into Dudley Do Rights and voluntarily surrendering power is a fairly new thing.  It is not just Whites who do this. It is also men. Whites and men are two of the few groups in the world that I can think of who have voluntarily ceded power to other groups and who have dismantled injustices that benefited us.

And what do we get for this saintly, self-sacrificing behavior? Endless attacks from the groups we gave up our privileges to attacking us for being the essence of pure evil. You can’t win.

I think that Whites and men, specifically White men, are some of the most moral people on Earth at the moment. You see anyone else voluntarily surrendering power and supporting things that harm their own group simply because they think that the policies they benefit from are immoral and hence should be dismantled?

White women have been in on this to some extent, but since feminism, they have become very angry and selfish. In a word, due to feminism, women are all hopped up and looking for paybacks.

An awful lot of people in the world believe:

Right/Good: Anything that benefits me.
Wrong/Bad: Anything that is bad for me.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Paybacks Are a Bitch

In order to live outside the law, you must be honest.

– Bob Dylan

Anyone who has spent any amount of time amongst street types – lawbreakers, either victimless or otherwise – that line in that song instantly rings a bell and makes perfect sense. I think people who don’t know much about street life would be more likely to be baffled. “What do you mean, to be a criminal, you must be honest? That makes no sense. Crooks aren’t honest.”

Oh yeah? Crooks have no sense of justice? Get yourself locked into a prison or jail sometime and start victimizing the other inmates. A lot of the time there are going to be some very serious  retaliatory consequences coming your way.

And as the saying on the street goes, “Paybacks are a bitch.”

When I lived my victimless street criminal life, I used to hear this all the time. If someone was going around committing injustices like ripping off the local dealers, the dealers and their friends would get together and really fuck the guy over hard.

My friends and I put a bomb on the windshield of a car and blew it up once because the owner of the car had been going around ripping the local dealers off. Two dealers participated in the bombing, another guy and I, and we had both been ripped off by this guy.

There really is a sense of cruel morality to the street. You can almost get away with more as a “legal criminal” than you can on the street. Sometimes I also think a good motto of the street is “the street has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears.”

Not only that but perversely enough, the street believes in justice. People who run around actively harming other street types usually have a pretty rude awakening coming to them. As in paybacks. It’s not uncommon for such victimizers to even end up dead.

“You don’t mess with the street” would be another saying of mine. Don’t mess with street types. They’re basically criminals, for Chrissake! They’ll kill you! A criminal will hurt you for an injustice committed against him far more than a law-abider will. They don’t have a lot compunctions about committing nasty crimes to get back at you. They’re used to committing crimes, being criminals after all.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Face It: A Lot of Young People of Both Genders and a Lot of Races Act Pretty Bad

Polar Bear: Black female morality: A local Italian place has cheap food that didn’t sell during the day, so I stopped by a little bit ago. Me and another White man get their first but let all the ladies go first. A fairly diverse bunch of women take their food before us – fine.

A black lady takes as many plates as she can carry, so me and the other gentlemen get none. Me and the other guy looked at each other and both thought of a word.

That word you were both thinking of is exactly what this lousy women is, sorry. If Blacks don’t want to be called words like that, just act decent and civilized, and most of us won’t abuse you with slurs. If you act terrible you deserve every slur hurled your way.

Blacks do this sort of thing a lot, far more than any other race I can think of. The one adjective I think of when I think of a certain type of Black person is “inconsiderate.” Very inconsiderate and self-centered. You’re either not there or you don’t matter. All that matters is them getting whatever the need, come Hell or high water. Other people are either nonexistent or in the way.

In fact, I would say that most of a certain type of Black women are like this. I think there is something wrong with a certain type of Black person. You all know exactly who I am talking about. I’m not surely what exactly is wrong with them and why they act this way, but one of the purposes of this site is to explore questions like that.

And yes, it is typically a Black woman who is trying to more or less scam or semi-scam, thieve or semi-thieve, this way. I don’t know about the extent to which Black men engage in this behavior, as I really don’t deal with them.

On the other hand, it’s not just Black women. This thing: low level more or less thievery or at least very inconsiderate behavior, is very common among women of all races. It is mostly young women who pull this shit. In my opinion, 1/3 of young women are basically thieves. And the people they steal from are men.

Many young women age 18-30 are virtually psychopathic. There’s something terribly wrong with them. I don’t understand why so many young women act this way.

After age 30, women do a lot less thieving. And whoring for that matter. Thieving (from men) and whoring are a young women’s game, and they excel at both of these things. The thieving is often tied in with sex in a way or at least that is used as an enticement. After age 30, women seem to have a lot more morals. Things they would have done without a thought when they were young now elicit frowns of disapproval and statements like, “That’s wrong.”

I really don’t get why but young men are pretty horrific too. Sure, Black men have an extremely high crime rate, but the Black men doing that are mostly 13-33.  After age 33, Black testosterone levels return to White levels or even lower, and an awful lot of Black men who used to act really bad calm down.

Really though, Hispanic and even White men age 18-30 don’t act real great. The vast majority of male crime in both Hispanics and Whites is committed by this cohort. I suppose you could say that a lot of young men period are almost psychopaths.

Youth is the time for a Hell of a lot of fun, potentially anyway, but young people of both sexes seem deficient in morality, and quite a few of them act pretty damn bad. Both males and females calm down after age 30-33 and even seem to grow a sense of morality where little existed before.

It’s also our society, as I talked to a man from Yemen, and he said that no woman would ever steal one dime from a man in his country. It’s simply unheard of.

These feminists wonder why some men pine for patriarchy, vicious as it is. If you offered me a society to live in where female thieves and thieving whores were basically nonexistent, I would probably want to impose a society like that.

For us men the benefits of such a system are obvious. It’s not just we get to be cruel and lord it over the ladies. I don’t care for that part of it. But a serious patriarchy cuts way down on the thieving and whoring tendencies of women, especially young women, so it spares us men from being victims of whole armies of predatory and amoral females who specialize in victimizing us.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: Male Morality Versus Female Morality

Jason: O.K. I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Seriously, in any town – are guys (as in traditional male) who run their mouth, backstab.

How is this different from chicks? Nothing.

Everyone runs their mouth and backstabs. It’s just about normal for both sexes. It’s a bit low (especially the backstabbing) but the number of both men and women who do this is very large. Backstabbing is rather shitty but a lot of people do it anyway. Unfortunately, I have been known to do it myself at times.

Like if I have two girlfriends at once and they find out about each other, I might go to Girlfriend A and diss Girlfriend B to or with her or vice versa. I’m basically playing them off each other. It’s pretty evil but I do it anyway. I am not a very honorable man when it comes to women, sorry. The rule book goes out the window, and I do a lot of bad things, but I really don’t care ha ha.

I am talking about making up pure lies about a man simply because they don’t like him. Mostly women do that and it’s usually young women. For instance, looks like young cunts made up some pretty nasty lies about you.

It’s true that on the Internet, a lot of “men” make up sheer lies about people they hate. If the man has psychopathic or narcissistic features, they can do it as a matter of habit. But that’s not part of male morality.

There’s nothing in male morality that says you can make up lies about people you don’t like. Almost all men would characterize that as fighting dirty and a lot would say it’s pussy, womanish, or unmanly behavior.

Male morality looks down on dirty fighting and sees it as pussy and unmasculine. “Come out and fight like a man!” Sure there are men who fight dirty, but a lot of us really look down on men like that because they are dishonorable and a real man is supposed to be honorable.

Female morality has no such values. Fighting dirty is allowed in female morality because they say that they are weaker so the only way they have a chance is to fight dirty. For instance, female morality says that if women think some guy is creepy or makes them “uncomfortable”, they have a perfect right to make up a bunch of sheer lies about him.

It’s moral to make up these lies because he’s a creep and he deserves it. Plus they need to get rid of him somehow because he makes the poor babies “uncomfortable”, and if they need to make up a bunch of lies to get rid of this guy, so be it. It’s worth it to not have him around so they can be “comfortable” again.

If  you go around the Manosphere, especially the MGTOW and Incel places, you will see a lot of references to the idea that women are simply evil, that they have no moral compass at all, or that they are all psychopaths. I was baffled by this for some time and thought maybe these guys were just nuts.

But I kept hearing it over and over. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. So I dug into it. I believe what I described above – that female morality says it’s ok to fight dirty and rules are for men – is probably the source of these allegations of female evil and amorality.

But fighting dirty doesn’t make you evil. Mostly it’s chickenshit, feminine, pussy and unmasculine, but women are most of those things by their nature anyway, so what do you expect? Of course they fight dirty. And women are not the only ones. Anywhere you look in society, where there’s a fight between someone who is stronger and someone who is weaker, the weaker party often resorts to dirty fighting because if they play by the rules, they’re going to get creamed.

I don’t like women’s dirty fighting, but I suppose it is to be expected. Just accept that they are like this, they’re not changing, and move on.

I don’t think women are evil, amoral, or psychopathic, but I can understand why they might appear that way.

I don’t think teenage girls do this to much to men or boys because in general they are not sophisticated enough to do dirty stuff like this. Also a lot of teenage girls are still pretty innocent and haven’t built up much anger and rage towards men yet.

But by age ~18, most women have developed a real bitch factor, guaranteed. I believe their views of men start to harden. High school girls just burst into tears. A college girl  will scream at you like a banshee and then rip your ball sack right off your body without a second thought.

Young women 18-30 will absolutely do this, and they do it all the time, out of habit almost, without batting an eye or a single trace of guilt. A huge number of young women – maybe 1/3 – are more or less  psychopaths in my opinion. I consider 1/3 of young women to be pretty damned  evil. That’s how many young women think it’s acceptable to steal from men.

Now a lot of older women (I am hoping) would say it’s not cool to make up sheer lies about some guy just because he  makes you uncomfortable. They would say ignore or quit looking at him and in addition, quit being so sensitive.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: Women Fight Dirty and Don’t Believe in Rules

Jason: Those women are being bitches – specifically picking on unattractive men. HOWEVER, it was noted recently on this blog that men unfairly target skinny men for “picking on”. Isn’t that the same thing?

Real Men Don’t Fight Dirty

I don’t know. I don’t know any men who pick on skinny men. That stuff is usually over by age 20. Maybe guys in high school might, I dunno. I’ve never known any skinny guys in my life that got picked on but YMMV.

According to male morality, it’s immoral to make up lies about another man just because you hate him. Sure, men do this all the time, especially in politics and war. But you’re not supposed to. You see a lot of men fighting dirty on the Net because they are completely unaccountable for their actions. If you let everyone be anonymous, you will get a society of psychopaths.  Most people only act halfway decent because they are forced to, sorry to say.

To a lot of men like me, a man fighting dirty is severely pussy behavior. A real man doesn’t fight dirty. A real man is honorable and he even fights honorably. I only fight honorably for the most part. I won’t make up a sheer lie about anyone, even my worst enemy.

Fighting dirty is chickenshit and pussy. It’s for little bitches, not real men. Frankly, fighting dirty is extremely feminine behavior because that’s how women fight. When you fight dirty you acknowledge that you are weak, as weak as a woman. It’s pathetic.

Women attack men they see as unattractive far more than other men do. Really, we men don’t really give a fuck about the rest of men. Hell, I don’t even look at other men most of the time! I see no men bullying other men ever in my day to day life and haven’t seen any of this for many years.

Fighting Dirty Is Natural and Normal Female Behavior

Now that we armed these dumb cunts with #metoo, they are using it to go after any man they don’t like. They will specifically single out men who they think are weird or unattractive and accuse them of #metoo violations. Most of the accusations will be straight up lies.

Young women are basically cunts. Evil cunts. Women get a lot less evil as they get older. Most women over 30 will not make up some #metoo lie about some man just because they think he’s weird or ugly.

But young women absolutely will. I would say 1/3 of young women are such evil cunts that they would straight up make up a #metoo lie out of whole cloth just because they think some guy is ugly, weird, or creepy. 1/3 of young women are pretty much psychopaths. Just pure cunts. The other 2/3 are ok. Young women are a field of landmines though. Most are good but a lot of them are very, very bad.

You must understand female thinking. Women think it is 100% acceptable to make up sheer lies about ugly, weird, or creepy men just because they don’t like them and they make these women feel “uncomfortable.” According to female “morality” that is 100% moral. This is how female “morals” work.

Women don’t believe in rules. Women think that rules are for men, not for women. They think men make up those rules to disarm women because men are so much stronger. As the weaker party, of course women fight dirty, and the acceptability of fighting dirty is a part of female “morality.” Women think, “We’re weak and men are strong. If we have to play fair, then they will destroy us. The only way we can fight men is to fight dirty.”

It’s like weak guerrilla groups going up against powerful national armies of nation-states. The only way that guerrillas stand a chance at all against national armies is if they fight dirty and throw out most of the rules. Face it, forcing guerrillas to fight fair means they are guaranteed to be wiped out. I don’t like terrorism, but a lot of guerrillas think terrorism is justified because they are weak, and terrorism is the only way they have a chance at all.

Until you figure this out about women, you will never understand them. Women won’t harm you physically but they can cause severe psychological and spiritual harm to men and their psyches. This country is full of men who have been more or less destroyed by women’s cruelty.

I don’t recommend that you get destroyed by this. I recommend instead to completely toughen up as far as women are concerned and recognize that millions of women in this country are straight up pure evil cunts from Hell. Accept that and be ok with it because you can’t change it. But most women are more or less decent human beings, and that applies even to young women, who excel in psychopathy.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Violation of Natural Law: A Theory Explaining Male and Female Homosexual’s Unhappiness and Psychological Disturbance

RL: And the sad thing about gay men is that gay men are most attracted to masculine men – IOW straight men, but straight men won’t have them. They’re not really into the other effeminate men they hook up with. So maybe that is why their lives tend to be rather sad. Lesbians also have a reputation for leading sad lives. “The Well of Loneliness” is a lesbian classic from the 1930’s.

I’ve wondered why gays and lesbians are not as happy and seem to be more mentally ill than straights. They are finding this even in cultures where discrimination is about zero. So it seems there is something inherent in homosexuality that makes people nutty, unhappy, and possibly unfulfilled.

My theory is that they violating Natural Law. They’re going against Nature. And things that go against Nature don’t really work. And people who go against Nature are often not very happy. Mother Nature bats last. Nature wants us to live our lives in certain ways, and when we don’t live our lives as nature dictates, we violate Nature and hence are unhappy because we are going against our “programming.”

To which Polar Bear responds:

You can’t fight Nature.

Lesbians with their fake dicks can only really have oral sex.

A gay will never give birth from his ass.

Transgenders, male to female, are likely more mentally ill but often less annoying than a flaming queer cis male. Of course, the ones that split their banana most always regret it – still not a pussy. Female to male dicks are even less realistic.

The happiness of these groups is a glimmer. The passable trannies’ passability, the twinks’ twinkle, the lesbian couples’ sex, etc. all fade fast. A straight couple has more natural permanence. While the old gay homo sucks the life out of some bum in a dark alley like a mohel, the sun shines on the straight couple sipping lemonade and holding hands while watching their great grand-kids play.

I really like Polar Bear’s comments. They’re almost poetic.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Face Facts: Homosexuality, Whatever You Think of It, Is Abnormal

Is homosexuality normal?

Although the question could be bigoted, it doesn’t have to be. On the contrary, it’s an excellent philosophical question.

I realize that almost all gay men and even most lesbians are biologically generated, and at least the gay men cannot change at all. Most lesbians will have a hard time changing. I have no reason to attack anyone who gets wired up any particular way through no fault of their own. It’s like beating someone up for having green eyes or blond hair.

But nevertheless, it’s painfully obvious to me that homosexuality is simply not normal. Obviously the species would have gone extinct if this were the norm.

However, like geniuses, retards, murderers, and saints, homosexuality is normal in that sense: it will always be part of the human experience whether it is right, wrong, or indifferent.

Let us consider briefly one excellent argument for the abnormality of homosexuality: If homosexuality were normal, why would homosexuals habitually mimic heterosexual relations?

Gay men split themselves into males (tops) and females (bottoms) both globally and in relationships.

If you look at a lot of lesbian relationships, it’s obvious that a lot of the time, one is the man, and the other is the woman.

If homosexuality were normal, it wouldn’t mimic heterosexual relations. The fact that it does so habitually implies that it is heterosexuality is the human norm, and homosexuality is just the abnormal variant mimicking the norm, as many abnormal variants do.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is “normal” in the human sense in that most all human societies will have at least a bit of homosexuality.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Human Abnormality and Normality: Two Contrasting Definitions

The two definitions would be:

First definition, Common versus uncommon.

1a. Abnormal as in uncommon: Everything only existing a small percentage of humans is abnormal like this. This usually but not always implies that it would not be workable if the majority were like this.

In this sense, sorry, but blue eyes and blond hair are abnormal unless you’re an Estonian. And of course left-handedness is abnormal. But one could argue that those three things are also harmless. Abnormal things could be either harmless or even positive (blond and blue above).

1b. Normal as in an always-present part of the human tapestry. In this sense, child molesting, rape, wife-beating, murder and all sorts of nasty things are “normal” in the sense that they are simply part and parcel on the human experience. On the other hand, we want to keep this sort of thing at as low a level as possible due to the moral aspect of it (it harms innocents) and the social chaos dimension (high levels of any of this cause a lot of chaos).

Second definition: Workable versus unworkable.

2a. Abnormal as in unworkable for the majority. In this case, the human behavior works on when only a few humans do it, but it might not work well at all if a majority of people were like this. I will give examples like this below.

2b. Normal as in workable for the majority. In this sense, left-handedness and blond hair and blue eyes would be both normal and abnormal at the same time: they are all rare so they are abnormal per se, but if the majority were left-handed or blond and blue, this would not only be workable for society but it might even make the world a better place. A world full of Swedish women sounds like an upgrade, at least to me.

Let us point out that geniuses, retards, murderers and saints are abnormal in the 1a sense for better or for worse.

Abnormal and bad (1a-2b type): On the other hand, neither killers nor retards are normal in the other sense.  You can’t really have a human species where most humans are murderers. Granted tribal societies like this exist (the Yanonamo), but it wouldn’t be healthy in larger groups.

In the US 110 million men would have murdered a man by age 40. You really think that’s sustainable. Killers get locked away forever in prison. You’d have millions or tens of millions of men locked away for decades. Not to mention the total societal chaos that would ensue.

Could you have a human species where most people are retards? Not going to work either.

Abnormal but good (1a-2a types). The good but abnormal things are different. Geniuses and saints are both normal and abnormal. They’re a normal part of the human experience, but only a tiny percentage of humans are either, so it’s abnormal de facto – anything practiced by only a tiny percentage of humans is obviously abnormal.

This also shows that there’s not necessarily wrong in the abnormality of tiny behavioral minorities. It takes all kinds to fill the freeways. And geniuses and saints both have contributed immensely to our species and our accomplishments.

But could you have a society of geniuses? I’m not sure. Probably no one would ever get laid for one thing because genius men at least are the worst at getting laid because they’ve left their bodies and swim in their heads all the time. Most Normies notice that and think it’s weird if not nuts.

That’s part of why genius men often find it hard to get laid. As IQ rises, men have less and less sex, girlfriends, wives, etc. and their likelihood of being virgins in their early years rises. So does their poor performance at sports. The awkward, dorky nerd genius who can’t get laid is more than a stereotype: there’s something to it.

And geniuses don’t hook up with each other very well  either, but maybe the female geniuses could seduce the male geniuses. A lot of female geniuses really like to fuck and have great success at dating and relationships. Genius doesn’t seem nearly so tied in with painful introversion in women. Female geniuses are often strikingly extroverted.

A society of saints? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it won’t work. We’re not meant to be pure good and especially purely self-sacrificing. We’d all die trying to be heroes and protect other people. A lot of us would probably deny ourselves to death as saints are wont to do so – check out how many saints and saintly types died of sheer starvation. Not to mention they like to starve themselves in other ways, as in sexually.

Saints seem prone to masochism and no-fun ethics – if it’s fun, it’s bad; if it makes you suffer,  it’s good. So there would again be a lot of celibates – volcels this time – whereas the genius males would be incels.

I would also argue that it’s not healthy for us to be pure good. A little bit of rough makes the world go round. I don’t like bad people, but I’m not against being a little bit bad. Hell, I’m not against being a little bit evil for that matter. I like to stir just a tiny sprinkle of evil into my coffee every morning. Gives me that nice bad boy edge to go out and conquer in a hostile world.

I’ve had girlfriends remark that I’m a little bit evil. That’s just fine. As far as I can tell, it’s helped me get laid. I have had girlfriends even flat out admit that to me – they have told me that I am dangerous and scary, but that that turns them on like crazy. For that reason one was rejecting a “boring old man” in favor of me, about whom she remarked:

You’re scary. But scary’s hot.

Danger in men revs up the female sex drive. Take note, boyos. Score one for Bad Boy Game.

If they said I was real evil, I might get worried.

Perhaps being a little bit bad or evil is an essential part of the human experience for most of us.

After all, what humans say is evil is simply normal survival type behaviors for most mammals. In other words, if most mammals aren’t at least a bit “evil” they’re probably going to die or go extinct.

Want to feel good about yourself? Fine, be a saint. On the other hand, want to survive? Maybe you’ll need to be just a bit bad.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20