Category Archives: Writing

PUA/Game: Women Love Writers

Yes, women (and girls) love to fuck writers. Bukowski said that, but he was not the first. We are romantics, you know. Artist types are romantic and romantic artist types set off the romantic drive that underlies the love instinct in females. Thing is you have to be good. Yes, women love writers, but my observation is that the only writers I have known who got women from their writing were damn good.

And they were usually writing some sort of literary type writing, either novels, short stories, poetry or literary nonfiction. Even a good journalist can get women if your prose really sings, say a music reviewer. If you are a writer but you don’t write well, I don’t think you will get women from your writing. It’s probably like that with any art. Yes, musicians, artists, writers, etc. can all get women, but only if they are damn good. If you are creative but you are not damn good, I don’t think it works to get women.

PS, when a woman tells a writer, “Oh! I love the way you write!” Um, that usually means she wants you. She’s in love with you or she wants to fuck you. Pretty much always. It doesn’t matter which because those two things are all jumbled up in females anyway.

3 Comments

Filed under Art, Gender Studies, Literature, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Writing

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World, by Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach

I have never heard of this early French philosopher, nor have I heard of his monumental doorstop of a book, quoted in the title.

The prose below is from 1773, and I doubt if anyone can write better today. I think this shows that our brains are about as smart now as they were in the times of the Revolutionary War at least in terms of raw IQ or brain speed. In fact, some studies have shown that Victorians had dramatically faster brains than we do (by reaction time). So the suspicions of us cynics may be true after all – of course we are getting stupider. Just look around you. How can it not be so?

Knowledge is one thing and intelligence is another. Intelligence is probably defined best as a measure of raw brain speed. The faster the brain, the more intelligent the person is.

Knowledge is another matter altogether and is more related to culture. For instance, we are much smarter now than we were in 1773 in terms of knowledge. We know so many more things and we understand the world so much better! We can make so many fancy things and solve so many difficult problems now solely on account of our accumulation of knowledge. So while we may be dumber than Victorians in terms of raw intelligence, we are much smarter than Victorians in terms of knowledge. The latter may well compensate for or even overwhelm the former. A fast brain is not a worth a lot if you barely understand the world around you.

It’s also useful to note that knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence necessarily. For all we know, cavemen may have had very fast brains. Brains in 1770 may have been even faster than in the Victorian Era. No one knows. We have always been an intelligent species. But while men in the Middle Ages and Dark Ages may have had brains that worked about as fast as ours, they were nevertheless not able to figure out the world very well.

Knowledge is more a matter of luck than anything else because ideally it is cumulative. With each generation or at least with each century or millennium, man has increased his knowledge and has managed to figure out the world better. Nevertheless, at the beginning the process is quite slow. Look at how long we lumbered along in comparative ignorance, even with presumably fast brains. This shows us that intelligence needs knowledge to be worth much of anything. Intelligence minus knowledge does not add up to a hill of beans. How impressive is a fast brain if it has the worldview of a caveman?

As I noted, knowledge ideally is cumulative. This is not always so, and there have been shocking histories of actual cultural and knowledge loss. The Tasmanians were separated from the mainland 10,000 years ago and afterwards they seem to have lost the ability to make fire and craft fishing hooks among other things. They may have also forgotten how to sew. So Idiocracy is nothing new. It’s been going on somewhere for at least 10,000 years.

Nevertheless, knowledge throwbacks are an anomaly because knowledge tends to be cumulative. It is also interesting to note that there seems to be some critical mass at work here. As knowledge gains, the acquisition of new knowledge seems to speed up somehow. Critical mass may well have been reached perhaps 100 years ago. Since then the leaps of knowledge have been spectacular. We now learn more in decade now than we did in a millennium.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the basics, we are hardly more competent now than we were in 1773.

Modern writers have not superseded the prose below; in fact, many cannot even achieve this 1773 level of competence. When it comes to certain things like the ability to write down our ideas, all of our knowledge seems to hit a roadblock. All of the massive knowledge we have piled on in the last century has not enabled us to craft better prose than the prose of 250 years ago.

I seriously doubt if your artistic skills have improved either. We now paint better than Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci? Really?

What about music? Are we really better musicians now than Bach or Beethoven? Really?

It’s doubtful that our psi skills have improved much.

Are our social skills really better now than they were in the past? Are you sure?

Are we better able to achieve psychological health than in the past?

Do we know any more about the mysteries of life such as the soul and death than we did then?

Has our philosophical knowledge actually improved? We still cannot surmount Plato and Aristotle.

Anyway, check out this awesome prose:

The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:–He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage–it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigor and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colors; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

Man seeks to range out of his sphere: notwithstanding the reiterated checks his ambitious folly experiences, he still attempts the impossible; strives to carry his researches beyond the visible world; and hunts out misery in imaginary regions. He would be a metaphysician before he has become a practical philosopher. He quits the contemplation of realities to meditate on chimeras. He neglects experience to feed on conjecture, to indulge in hypothesis.

He dares not cultivate his reason, because from his earliest days he has been taught to consider it criminal. He pretends to know his date in the indistinct abodes of another life, before he has considered of the means by which he is to render himself happy in the world he inhabits: in short, man disdains the study of Nature, except it be partially: he pursues phantoms that resemble an ignis-fatuus, which at once dazzle, bewilders, and frighten: like the benighted traveler led astray by these deceptive exhalations of a swampy soil, he frequently quits the plain, the simple road of truth, by pursuing of which, he can alone ever reasonably hope to reach the goal of happiness.

The most important of our duties, then, is to seek means by which we may destroy delusions that can never do more than mislead us. The remedies for these evils must be sought for in Nature herself; it is only in the abundance of her resources, that we can rationally expect to find antidotes to the mischiefs brought upon us by an ill directed, by an overpowering enthusiasm. It is time these remedies were sought; it is time to look the evil boldly in the face, to examine its foundations, to scrutinize its superstructure: reason, with its faithful guide experience, must attack in their entrenchments those prejudices, to which the human race has but too long been the victim. For this purpose reason must be restored to its proper rank,–it must be rescued from the evil company with which it is associated. It has been too long degraded –too long neglected–cowardice has rendered it subservient to delirium, the slave to falsehood. It must no longer be held down by the massive claims of ignorant prejudice.

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World

– Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach, 1773.

As an aside, while reading this, I kept thinking, “This describes just about everyone I know.” Although Holbach may have been thinking about other types of ignorance and another type of reason, the passage still rang a bell. After all, look who we just elected President. The triumph of ignorance over reason right there. Look at our entire political culture. It’s all based on cultivated ignorance. Where’s the reason? There is none.

The only reason or logic that Americans follow is the logic that leads them to making more money. If it makes me money, it’s true. If it loses or costs me money, it’s false. That’s the reason by which most Americans live their lives. Obviously this leads to a lot of irrational if not insane decisions because the thing that costs you money is often a more rational decision than the decision that makes you money.

Guess what, Americans? I got some news for you.

Money does not equal truth.

Loss of money does not equal falsehood.

That’s a most peculiar moral philosophy we have set up for ourselves in this idiot Yahoo Country.

I know few people who want or try to challenge their core beliefs, which I believe is what Holbach is ultimately getting at above. The original purpose of this site – “If I Am Not Making You Mad, I Am Not Doing My Job” – was not to troll the world but instead to force readers to throw more of their beliefs up for grabs. I was out to challenge just about everything you believe in. Why? Because that’s what you need to do. You need to throw as much of your beliefs as possible up for grabs, as painful as that is. It’s very hard to do, so most just don’t bother.

About the book, this looks pretty cool. It was originally written in French, so that translation looks really cool. I am not sure if I could handle 993 pages of that prose though!

15 Comments

Filed under American, Art, Culture, History, Intelligence, Modern, Music, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Writing

Has Self-Expression Affected Your life, If So, In What Way?

Just met a new friend here who very, very smart. I have no idea if he meets criteria for genius, but he’s close enough for me. I’ll just call him my New Genius Friend, ZE. We are having a dialogue lately on creativity. His interests include the intersection of creativity and leadership and how one informs the other. His work seems to be mostly directed at the business sector where leadership training is often used and I would argue very much needed, though I have no interest in this sort of thing, mostly because I seriously suck as a leader. And I’m not sure I care about that at all because I hate the idea of leading people in much of anything, except maybe leading a herd of humans racing like scampering rodents off a steep cliff, and I might even have to think twice about that one, as momentarily thrilling as it sounds.

ZE: Has self-expression affected your life, and if so, in what way?

To me self-expression is my writing. For many years, I did not write. Now I write all the time, so I am expressing myself and my emotions to the whole damn world every day, with thousands of rapt listeners. God I love it so much. But I do not write to express myself.

I write because I have to or need to. This is a gift I was born with, and as with many people with gifts, I have been working like mad overtime on my gift for most of my life.

This is where people confuse giftedness and hard work. They think it is one or the other, but often it is both. Many people are born with a gift but then work, often very, very hard, on their gift for years or decades.

It’s my opinion that they get better at it, but I suppose that remains to be proven.

It’s a good question. Would I be just as good a writer if I picked up a pen now for the first time as opposed to working like Hell on my skill for years? I say no, but has it been proven?. It probably doesn’t matter because most with a gift secretly think they suck and always look to those who do the gifted thing better than they do. This makes them mad and insecure, so they are always trying to be better. I am always trying to be a better writer because I look around and see better writers all the time. They often make me a bit mad that I can’t write that well, so I kick myself in the butt for being a lousy writer and resolve to beat that guy if it’s the last thing I do.

Even if you could prove that practice is worthless, I think a lot of us gifted folks would do it anyways because the gift seems to compel you to insecurity and constant upward striving.

The most gifted people often secretly feel that they suck. This is interesting. Lousy writers don’t get blocked. Every blocked writer I knew was a great writer.

Also blocking is usually stupid. Blocking is caused by fearing that you can’t write well, which in the case of most good writers, is pretty much a lie. Once you sit down and start doing it, you usually see that the blocking was a lie, and you can actually do it well. This is because gifted people are perfectionists, but that is a rather good thing I think.

29 Comments

Filed under Psychology, Writing

What Have You Learned from Self-Expression, Whether Chosen by You or Imposed upon You?

ZE: What have you learned from self-expression, whether chosen by you or imposed upon you?

It was better when I chose it.

When it was imposed on me, I often did not enjoy it and felt I had been taken prisoner, often by a hostile force.

These questions are hard to answer, as I bottle stuff up inside. Even people like me feel emotion, but we feel it in our minds more than in our bodies.

My theory is that running from your feelings is the problem. I work in mental health, and increasingly I tell my clients to just accept their feelings and quit trying to run from them. If you feel sad, say, “Thank God for that feeling!” and sit there and be with it. The universe is about 1/2 sadness, and that’s on a good day! You may as well sit down and be alone with the sadness of life and the world, which is quite ample. Just be OK with it. Life is sad. That’s fine. That’s part of the experience of being here.

People panic when they are sad. My best friend is a young woman. She calls me up panicked that she is feeling sad, as if it is a terrible thing. So she wants to run from it. But that doesn’t seem to work.

Say I had a client who was in a bad marriage and getting ready to leave his wife. He feels guilty for being a bad father, for leaving his son, for all sorts of things. Normally therapists will tell you to stop thinking that, as it is irrational, but the thing is, you tell people that, and they are going to go ahead and feel it anyway. So I tell would him to just sit there and be OK with those feelings.

I would say, “Well there is a part of you that feels a need to have these feelings. Just sit there and have those feelings and be OK with them. I think after some time, you will get these feelings out of your system, and you might even get sick of them. I don’t want you to feel this way for too long – say five years would be too long – but you need to feel this way for so me time – even up to one to four years I would be OK with you just experiencing that as part of the process and then finally moving on.”

But the role of originality in creativity, I would say that to some extent they are one and the same. But the original thought is more your own as opposed something truly sui generis. And you borrow all the original thoughts you want to. And while you’re at it, you can borrow all the creativity you want to also. You don’t even have to pay to rent or buy ideas, concepts, metaphors, turns or phrase, figures of speech or even jokes and laugh lines. Just go ahead and steal em.

Come on, just do it! Look around, make sure no one is looking, and nab that cute turn of phrase. Stick it in your pocket real fast before the Thought Police can figure out what you did. Now move away quickly and stash that fancy little phrase in some safe place wherever you store your stolen verbal material. I would suggest a locked briefcase. You can try to put them in your mind, but lately just about everything I store up there seems to get lost somehow, but that might not be a good idea.

You can’t copyright words! Or phrases! Or even sentences, really. You certainly cannot copyright or patent concepts, ideas, theories or notions. It’s all up for grabs. I assume that the capitalists are going to try to figure out a way to copyright or patent all this stuff just so the sick fucks can make a buck off it, but in the meantime, it’s mostly up for grabs.

Plagiarism is not illegal, but it’s a career killer. I would advise to tread cautiously, but trust me, we writers steal stuff all the time. You have to be very careful how you do it, and when it comes to famous or popular works, you just steal a tiny bit here and there, better yet completely unconsciously.

We all gather information from everywhere all the time. We do not have to go around crediting everyone we grabbed some idea from. I sure as Hell don’t.

Incidentally this is part of creativity and originality. Grabbing stuff from other people. Look, there are not a whole lot of new ideas floating around. Humans have been thinking, talking and especially writing stuff down for 2,000 years. Hence almost all creativity, even most originality, is more or less rehash, but that’s the whole idea of it really. Just don’t steal too brazenly and you’ll be fine.

The truly great thinker is running about grabbing great ideas from as many people as possible in as many places as he can. He can then elaborate on them if he wishes or squirrel them away in which case, as long as he can recall them, he can rehash them, add or subtract to them, mix them with other ideas in all sorts of ways or combine them with other ideas to form new theories, patterns, ways of seeing, conceptualizations and especially overarching pattern-theories, which I call “putting it all together” and “seeing the big picture.”

Otherwise known as “wisdom.”

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Writing

Is There Any Way to Sustain Emotional Self-Expression?

ZE: Is there any way to sustain emotional self-expression?

I think most people do it anyway because most folks seem to be pretty emotional. They go around expressing their emotions all the time anyway, unless you are getting at something different from quotidian emotionalizing here.

For me, to sustain it, I would have to keep writing because writing expresses my emotions best.

Humor is a good way to express emotions. As long as you are communicating with humans, you can make humorous comments that express emotion very well.

It also helps to be a systematizing thinker.

The more you can systematize, the more wisdom you obtain, and the best emotional expression is in the form of wisdom.

And art.

And then humor.

2 Comments

Filed under Art, Humor, Psychology, Writing

CP Story from High School

One of the players in the Delphi murders drama has been a young man named CP. Like so many people including yours truly,  he was briefly considered a possible suspect in the killings. I never thought  much of this theory. We quickly learned that he had a rock solid alibi for the time of the murders, as he was at Subaru at work. Along with his father, he was present at the search for the girls at 5:30 PM. He may have been part of the family group that came back at midnight and searched until 2:30 AM. Hence there is no way whatsoever that he could have been involved in this mess.

I will not go over the theory of why people thought he might be involved in the crime or any other criminal matters regarding CP. Other than a string of drunk driving offenses, there is no good hard evidence that he has ever committed a serious offense.

Some people are still suspicious of him and today I was sent a story he wrote back in high school where he turns into a murderous monster,  apparently to show that he had some homicidal fantasies or potential at least. People can investigate this P family all they wish. As far as I am concerned, they are all innocent.

Which leads us to a story that CP wrote in high school about him transforming into a murderous monster. I thought it was going to be some dark, disturbing stuff, but really it wasn’t. I really was not expecting much from this story and I was getting ready to cringe. I figured CP was a dumb redneck like the rest of  them.

Cody’s story here.

Boy was I wrong!

This is a fine little piece of writing! And my pet peeves, poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. are mostly absent. He needs a bit of a light edit, but not much and good writers I work with a lot need about as much of an edit as he does.

I was stunned that this is a very good story! CP can actually spin a fine little tale and his writing style shows skill and smoothness. He kept the narrative going well and didn’t flash back and forth between tenses.

CP can actually write quite well, especially for a high school kid! What do you know.  I never thought he had it in him.

I have no idea how smart he is, but if he is intelligent enough to write well and construct this nice tight little tail, he’s as smart as he needs to be, and that’s all that matters in this world.

A lot of people out there are nice writers just waiting to unleash their potential.

A tip of the hat to CP of Delphi, Indiana for a job well done.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

1 Comment

Filed under Crime, Literary Excursions, Midwest, Regional, USA, Writing

About My Employment Status

I am sort of getting tired of answering questions about my employment that I get from haters every day. Here is a statement on the matter from another site a while back.

I live off a trust fund, and I also work as a therapist. I make some money writing and I do a few other things like brokering deals between consultants and clients, things like that. The reason I do not work is due to health. I am not in good enough health to work. Otherwise I have been working or in school my whole life. My last job title was Linguist/Cultural Anthropologist.

I do not use any government programs, so I am mystified at people always saying I am on welfare or collect a government check. I have no idea where they came up with that idea.

Here are my income sources in the last year or so:

Income Sources

Trust fund. Had $700,000 at the start, but now it is a lot less. It is a spendthrift trust, so I am locked out of it. They have always given me right around a poverty level wage only because my grandfather wanted me to survive but he also wanted to force me to work, so he made it small enough so I could survive but would not live comfortably. The idea was to force me to work because he did not want me kicking back my whole life as a trust fund kid. It was made spendthrift because he figured that if I had control over it, I would blow through the thing in a few years as I was a bit of a spendthrift, party boy and playboy as a young man.

Counseling. Peer counselor. I focus mostly on one condition, a DSM anxiety disorder, which, frankly, I am an expert on. I work with clients all over the world, mostly in the US but also in Chile, El Salvador, Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. I also work with problems in living, deep stuff (exploring your deep self or childhood issues) and growth stuff (learning how to grow to become a better and more functional human being).

People often break down in tears and start crying right in the middle of sessions. Happens all the time. I deal with suicidal people all the time. In fact, I lost one client to suicide already. I have had clients who were attempting suicide while I was working with them. It can be hard to deal with. I have no degrees, credentials or licenses in this field, but in California, you do not need one. Just hang out your shingle and call yourself “Counselor” and say come talk  to me about your problems. I do not get a lot of business, but I do get some. Considering that I lack all of the things you usually need to do this work, I am amazed that I get any work at all.

I read a lot of books on this subject and I have been studying psychology for 40 years. I had decades of therapy. I read up on counseling psychology and mental illness all the time so I am pretty much self-taught. You would be amazed how many jobs you can do simply by teaching yourself how to do them. It’s a myth that you need degrees, credentials,. etc. to do this or that job. Just teach yourself.

The longer I do this, the better I get at it. It is a stressful job though. I do one 1 hour session and I feel like I just ran a mile. I sometimes have to go lie down. The clients are in so much psychic pain that it seems to leak out of them and into my body. If you are empathetic at all this is going to happen.

Brokering deals between graphic artists and clients. I put the clients and artists together, negotiate prices, etc. and then take a cut for myself.

Conflict resolution/arbitration. In cases of graphic artists and clients where they have come to a standstill and nothing is getting done. An example: client has spent $~1,000 and is not satisfied with the product. Artist has stopped speaking to the client or returning his phone calls or emails. Client sent work back for endless revisions, and eventually the artist just had it. I wade in there, talk to both sides, figure out the nature of the dispute and try to settle the matter so that everyone is happy. I am actually quite good at this.

Webpage design/graphics. Mostly graphics. Working with graphics for people who need websites done. Work with graphic artists.

Graphics editor for books. I was recently a graphics editor for a book. I was in charge of maps. I worked with a graphic artist and told him what to label the areas and where to  shade in the areas we needed to shade in. We used a lot of sources, all of which were wrong. It was a great big mess,  but it was fun to put together the jigsaw puzzle.

Webpage design consulting. Consult with webpage designers who are having problems with their pages to fix their issues.

Selling information. As crazy as it sounds, I have actually made money doing that. I have some pretty much secret information about a few things that a lot of people want but few people have access to. An example would be a geographical location of an  unusual place that a lot of people want to get to, but the location is a closely guarded secret. So I ell directions to this location and then work with them afterwards to help them reach the site, etc. Yes, you can actually sell information! Isn’t that crazy?

Medical counseling. Work with heterosexual men who are worried that they have contracted HIV from sexual contact with women. I am an expert on this type of transmission and have been studying it for over 30 years now. I know more about it than most physicians.

They tell me the situation, and I lay out the odds that they may have contracted the disease based on their situation. I also tell them how HIV is acquired from women and tell them about the various surveys that have been done. I also have a lot of percentages, facts and figures about this type of transmission, like say 1% chance after 40 encounters. I tell them about all the different types of testing, the accuracy, etc. Then I follow them through any tests that they need to take in the next few months. And if they have anxiety or obsessive issues about possibly contracting this illness, I work with them on that, as I am very good at calming down or talking down people who are in the midst of anxiety episodes. I do it all the time.

Author. Just published my first book, or chapter in a book I should say. It is an 80 page chapter. I am supposed to be paid for this at some point. Book was published in Turkey in a university press. Took me 500 hours or three months work at part time. I worked with professors from all over the world on this project. I also had to go through two rather brutal peer reviews. I also came up with the name for this book series, but I was not paid for that.

Sell advertisements. I have made a bit of money selling ads on this site, but honestly it has been very little.

That’s it. I am always looking for new ways to get money though. I wake up every morning and think, “How am I going to get some money today?”

I became ill 21 years ago and have not worked at a regular job since. If I did not have the trust, I would try for Disability. Before I got ill, I was always either working or in college or both. There was never a time when I was doing neither.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

51 Comments

Filed under Art, Health, Illness, Labor, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Vanity, Writing

The AltLeft “Tea Party,” by Rabbit

The AltLeft “Tea Party”

Very nice new article about the Alt Left from Rabbit. I actually still like Rabbit. He is apparently not happy at with Trump. He described most of Trump’s Cabinet picks as “cringey” which is at the very least how I feel about them. Actually to me they are more like “”homicidal rage-inducing” but at this point, that’s a bit of a quibble. Rabbit is on the same page with all the rest of the Left on Trumpism except on the broad race, immigration and possibly trade policy stuff. But he already seems to be selling out the trade stuff horrendously. He’s selling out the immigration stuff too. Too bad the Mexicans aren’t going to pay for the wall. You and me are! Out of our pockets into the mitts of one of one of Trump’s billionaire pals via a rigged no-bid contract. Reverse Robin Hood again, but Reverse Robin Hood is all Trumpism is about anyway. Think about it. Real hard now.

and I don’t see how he could be given Rabbit’s base political beliefs. A lot of the rest of the left wing of the Alt Right has gone over to Trumpism, and to me, that’s all I need to sever ties with them once and for all.

The thing about Rabbit is the same thing that everyone gets wrong about the Alt Left. Rabbit is a Leftist, dammit. He really is a leftwinger. He’s a man of the Left. So many people just cannot wrap their heads around that. If you look at his views across the board, Rabbit is leftwing on just about everything but race and the Cultural Left, and even on the Cultural Left, he is with them on a lot more things than I am. Rabbit holds traditional leftwing notions on sexual orientation, gender identity, feminism, etc. He’s not a social conservative at all. In fact, he is to the left of me on a lot of that stuff. On the other hand, he seems personally red-pilled and he spent a lot of time in the Manosphere and the MGTOW movement before he drifted into the Alt Left.

If he’s leftwing on about everything but race and PC Culture, how the hell is he a rightwinger? I don’t see how missing one check box on the leftwing list of beliefs throws you out of the Left. Suppose we say Rabbit cannot be on the Left due to his views on race (a common notion). In fact, we say, his racial views make him a rightwinger no matter what else gets thrown into the mix. Ok, fine, cast him out.

He’s back over on the Right now. Rabbit gets handed the rightwing checklist. Whereas with the Left he failed to check one box, with the Right he fails to check 95% of the boxes. And somehow he’s rightwing? Forget it. Getting beyond left and right is said to be a well known trope of fascism, but so what? Maybe we do need to get beyond left and right and maybe we don’t have to be fascists to do that. In fact, the Alt Left is precisely all about getting beyond Left and Right to some extent, although we are still mostly on the Left. There’s nothing inherently wrong with heterogeneous politics, and this represents your average person’s views anyway. Homogeneous politics is synonymous with ideologues, and who needs them. Give me a sui generis heterogeneous political mix versus any sort of ideologue any day of the week.

Whatever you think of his stand on race, I believe that Rabbit is a very important thinker in our movement, and besides, let’s get real, race is only part of the package Rabbit is selling. You can still buy a custom package minus the race part. Furthermore, he is a superior chronicler and opinion-maker in our movement as a whole, and Rabbit doesn’t care if you don’t agree

It’s not often discussed, but I also like his media criticism, most of which centers around movie reviews. He has a quirky sense there too, focusing on films from the 1970’s. His architectural musings are also quite good, though I don’t know much about the subject. And there’s something about a guy who unironically lionizes Charles Manson

I also very much like his prose and also a lot of his quirky worldview. I am trained as an editor and Rabbit’s prose is what we call “clean copy.” You needn’t mark it up at all, and he’s saying it better than you the editor could anyway. The rules of English punctuation are quite arcane, and 95% of Americans screw them up. Rabbit’s pretty much got them down. You would think he was a J-major.

But as far as a writer goes, he is one of the finest writers in our movement. He’s a great writer! He should be published, and in fact, I believe he is just now as he deserves to be. As a writer, most of what I read is not really great writing. Only maybe 10% of the time do you read prose on the Net that truly sings right off the page. I don’t know if he’s better than I am, but it’s awful close. It’s at least a tossup, and that’s a compliment, as I dislike most other writers.

As long as he keeps away from racial slurs, his prose is worth it for the political theory and just for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it.

A lot of people want to throw Rabbit out of the movement. Funny because he just about co-founded it. Thing is, Rabbit ain’t going anywhere, nor should he. He’s staying right where he is whether we like it or not. Rabbit is stuck with the Alt Left, and we are stuck with him. We are stuck onto each other like damned remoras. And perhaps after all that is just as it should be.
teapartyalice

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I don’t mean “Tea Party” in the sense of the happy meal conservative movement that emerged in the early part of the Obama administration. Nor am I referring to anything relating to the Boston Tea Party or the American revolution.

I’m talking about the AltLeft and how for me it has come to resemble the tea party in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972 version of course!) This film was always on HBO in the mid 1980s, even though it came out in the early 70s. I believe the reason they began to re-air it in the 80s was because the star, Fiona Fullerton, had grown up and re-emerged as a Bond girl in “A View to a Kill,” which came out in 1985.

Anyway, when I first got involved with the AltLeft about a year and a half ago, in my mind it was always meant to augment the AltRight, not outright oppose it. It was a way to view and examine the affects of multiculturalism and political correctness from a cultural and economically left lens as well as from a secular and futurist perspective rather than the radical traditionalist, socially conservative one that dominates rightwing circles. In other words, recognizing the implicit Whiteness that underpins the identities of progressive cities like Seattle or Portland, and asserting that it must become explicit to some degree in order for those places to maintain their culture, aesthetic and quality of life.

It was to put forth the idea that someone can be pro-White without the albatross of traditionally conservative culture, pre-modern aesthetics, capitalist economics, or widely accepted Republican historical dogma (“the 60s were bad,” “Vietnam draft dodgers were traitors,” “McCarthy was right,” “I hate modern architecture,” etc.)

If you hang around rightwing groups for any period of time, you’ll find they have an assumed historical narrative that informs many of their beliefs. I say “assumed,” because they just take it for granted that everyone who agrees with them one issue such as race also accepts their historical framing of a wide range of other issues such as economic systems, religious beliefs, or aesthetic preferences (just as someone on the “Left” might assume that anyone who supports trans rights and raising the minimum wage automatically accepts the idea that racial diversity is always a good thing.) Not everyone buys the package deal.

manson

Unfortunately, the AltLeft has instead attracted a wide range of bizarre characters, each with their own zany ideas about what the AltLeft should represent. Many of them never read any of the original manifestos that I or Robert Lindsay or anyone else wrote or bothered to do any research. They just started using the term like they’d started a new band without checking to see if some other band was already using the name. That would be understandable if this were the pre-Internet days, but it seriously only takes like two seconds to Google. Others actually did thoroughly read this site and somehow managed to come to the conclusion their peculiar ideology was compatible with mine, despite it being a complete mystery to me what exactly was the point of agreement.

The AltLeft has come to attract all kinds of eccentric personalities, each one adhering to their own pet belief system. Worse than that, many have joined the AltLeft for the purpose of militantly opposing the AltRight, which is something I never intended to do (hence the reason I still use the tagline “the left wing of the AltRight.”) Though I disagree with him on a few ideological points…I happen to support Richard Spencer, and I have defended him numerous times when certain squeamish (and often prudish) factions as well as a few prominent figures of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to throw him under the bus.

So when I interact with other people in the incoherent “movement” known as the AltLeft, it feels a lot like the sitting down at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. It’s a group of outlandish castouts, contrarians, and vagabonds that have little in creatural commonality other than their politically idiosyncratic tendencies and behavioral eccentricities. Part of me finds this demoralizing, wondering why I ever bothered going down this rabbit hole and whether I can just climb out and forget the whole adventure. Yet the other part of me just embraces the gathering of this zany cast of characters for the sheer chaos that they have unleashed as we bounce off-the-wall ideas past each other and revel at the sight confounded normies that stumble into our world.

5 Comments

Filed under Cinema, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sane Pro-White, US Politics, Vanity, Writing

“Review of ‘The OA’ series on Netflix,” by Magneto

Review of The OA series on Netflix

by Magneto

I just finished binge watching the 8-episode new series The OA on Netflix and have mixed feelings. It begins by telling an extremely complex tale about a young girl who got adopted from Russia and then kidnapped by a doctor who was researching Near Death Experiences. It drags this story through about seven episodes, but in the 8th episode everything falls apart, and it ends in an incredibly stupid way that leaves you with a lot of questions and no answers.

I will admit that the story is very well written, and it’s a unique series compared to 99% of what is on television today, but after finishing the 8th episode, it feels like the authors were trying too hard to come across as overly deep and complex.

To be honest, I don’t have a fucking clue what the series was even about. There’s a new style of storytelling, both in movies and TV shows, where the writers try to come across as super-metaphysical and deep and merely try to get you to feel strong emotions rather than actually telling a cohesive story. It’s an interesting writing style, but in the end, it feels meaningless because you realize that there was no point at all in the story. Even worse is when the story is written so vaguely and incoherently that you don’t have any idea what the story was about.

My conclusion is that the writers of the series wove together a bunch of random concepts, and in the end, they tried to give some meaning to the chaos of their story. They’ve retroactively tried to put a spin on it by calling it deep, philosophical, spiritual, etc, but in the end it is just a bunch of “beautiful bullshit” as The Atlantic article described it.

It’s been compared to another very strange series called Stranger Things, which I have still yet to watch, but I’ll get around to it after this.

My advice to the writers or to any other scriptwriter is that it’s okay to make your story complex and even a bit confusing, but you need to resolve the majority of the questions that you have brought up. Leaving viewers hanging with a million unanswered questions makes you look like a fool who wrote a bunch of random bullshit and then tried to paint it as deep and intellectual. It’s time to stop trying so hard to be artsy and unique and go back more towards the traditional way of storytelling where you tell a story that follows a normal timeline, progresses through it’s story, however complex or simple it may be, and then ends with the majority of the plot points resolved. Enough with the New Age Modern Art crap, okay?

5 Comments

Filed under Cinema, Guest Posts, Writing

In Praise of Hunter Wallace

Sam J: Robert quoting Hunter Wallace! I’m flabbergasted. I agree with most all of the things Hunter Wallace says except I don’t want to break up the USA; I want the whole country.

I don’t agree with him, but he is a superb writer! Does anyone else notice what a great writer he is? Sometimes I think it takes another good writer to recognize another good writer. Maybe for most people, we all seem the same.

But though it is painful for me to say this, I have always thought that Hunter Wallace is a better writer than I am. And I think I am very good. Thousands of people have been telling me this since I was seven years old, so I figure it’s probably true. I’m a failure at everything else, but I can write. No wait, I can get laid. OK, let me restate it. I’m a failure at almost everything, except I can write and I can get laid. Well, that means I am good at two things at least, and that’s probably better than most humans. Actually, I meet people who write better than I do frequently, and it is very humbling. I don’t mind at all if others can write better than me. I don’t have to be #1 or the best. All I need is good or better. You’re an idiot if you need to be the best at anything.

Anyway, Hunter Wallace is a fine, fine writer. He has an excellent turn of phrase, and I find myself repeating his gem-like perfect sentences over and over in my head because they are so right-there immaculate. For instance, that call-out quote by him above defining Liberal Race Realism is the most perfect description of it yet by anyone by far.

And I think Wallace is also an excellent thinker, which makes sense as good writers and good thinkers tend to be the same thing. Few writers write for mere prettiness. In fact, being a great thinker is probably one of the most important qualities in being a fine writer. Most people probably don’t realize that.

Now I also think he is wrong about a number of things. But what most do not realize is that great thinkers can still be wrong. In fact, they are often wrong. The fact that you are wrong does eliminate the possibility of being a great thinker.

Check out Otto Weininger. Now, I happen to think he is wrong about a number of things, but Weininger is great in part because of exactly how he is wrong in that most perfect, glorious and beautiful way of being-wrong. In fact, figuring out how he is wrong is one of the fantastic things about reading Weininger. His greatness lies in how he is wrong, exactly as Wittgenstein, who acknowledged Weininger as an influence, said, and Wittgenstein was never wrong about anything.

Now, I do not agree with Hunter at all on quite a few things, but I have some respect for him. He calls himself an agrarian socialist. Look up a seminal tract by Southern writers from 1935 called I Take My Stand – I believe Faulkner signed it. He’s about as dubious of the rich and powerful and the corporations as I am, and I’m a Leftist. What Wallace is selling is actually the real deal – true rightwing populism. Not that junk snake oil half-rightwing populism Trump is selling, but I mean the real stuff. His project is not as good as Marie Le Pen’s of course, and he’s wrong on race, but I do have to respect him.

Also his discourse is pretty clean and polite. You don’t hear him calling Black people niggers and whatnot, but Southern Whites have a long tradition of this genteel manner when at least speaking about race. And while we don’t agree about race, I think we agree racially on one thing. I love my people. I actually love White people and White culture. I love being White. I wake up every morning, look up at the ceiling and think, “Thank God for making me White!” I’m sure Hunter agrees with me racially in that sense anyway.

48 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Sane Pro-White, Socialism, South, US Politics, USA, Writing