Category Archives: decline and fall

A world without poetry

Good article:

Walt Whitman, Mass Media and Jewish Power

The author of this falls under the category of, “he said things critical of Jewry, Israel and/or the Holocaust” which therefore means he must be an anti-semite and a Nazi, even though he’s actually a poet who lives in a small town in Vietnam. Maybe it’s even risky posting that link here and not immediately disavowing everything he says.

But, it’s a good article.  For example:

Hedges has written quite a bit about how enthralled we are to illusions and pseudo-events, a make believe universe of distortions and lies that has removed us from reality. The mass produced images are the virtual bricks of this faux cosmos, and it all started with photography, invented during Whitman’s lifetime.

And:

The fact is, there is no need to erase Whitman, for he and every other poet are already all but invisible in this nation of mirages, trivia and distractions, where sexed up, mass produced images have erased contemplation, reflection and, ultimately, thoughts. Poetry is no longer viable in the United States.

I don’t care much about poetry myself, lacking the cognitive ability to process it very well (or maybe I’m just impatient and lazy with what I read). But, taking the gist of what he’s saying, it’s apparent that he is spot on in a general sense. Take poetry as a metaphor for a larger spectrum of experience, things that used to be basic parts of human existence but which no longer fit into a world where everything is part of some media campaign or strategic plan.

Everything is fake now. I go to a nearby wildlife refuge for a walk and the boards in the footbridges there turn out to be made of plastic with a little sawdust mixed in, then imprinted with a wood grain pattern and colored to make them look “real.” Or, have you noticed how hard it’s gotten to find casual clothing that doesn’t have someone’s brand name clearly visible on it? A winter jacket, for instance. Try finding one that doesn’t have a logo on it. Or pants. We’re not wearing pants, we’re wearing “Dockers” or “Levi’s” or whatever the hell are the current brands (I know Dockers and Levis aren’t anymore). Even underwear has the logo of some company obnoxiously emblazoned around the waistband for fuck’s sake. Can a man take off his damn pants without becoming yet another advertisement? Apparently not! Our choice is to either be an ad, or run around completely naked.

We even have fake people now. A woman who I’ve known for pretty much a decade has a personality which I would describe as 100% artificial. The sad thing is, she’s quite intelligent and reasonable, with a good sense of humor, and yet, somehow she manages to not only act as if she’s never had an independent thought in her life, the impression she creates with her persona is that of a scripted TV character, and not a very well written one either. And she’s like that all the time. It’s not an act! It’s just how she is.

It’s a sad day when we don’t just have to put up with endless, tedious ads every damn place we look, or third-rate, one-dimensional characters in our entertainment, but when people start to lose the ability to see how artificial and narrow these things are, to the point where they themselves subsume their entire identities and personalities into them…all I can say is, that’s fucked up. And I have no clue how to fix any of it.

Maybe I should press “f” now.

Advertisements

Our own Crisis of the Third Century

Excellent article by The Saker:

Mr. MAGA and the End of Western Civilization

It’s pretty critical of Trump, but also very critical of pretty much everyone else, particularly those who richly deserve it. It’s also a very good summary of the current mess we find ourselves in.

A very short excerpt:

Nobody can predict how this struggle between the Neocons and the Clinton Gang on one hand and Trump on the other will play out, but my personal guess is that Trump is a disposable President: the Neocons will use him to do all the crazy shit they typically are known for, and when the inevitable disaster strikes, they will blame him, him alone, while hiding their own role in what took place.

Sadly, I am in complete agreement. Failing to keep Trump out of office in the first place, the powers that be will settle for making him their scapegoat for whatever happens to go wrong in the next 10 or more years. And there’ll be a lot that goes wrong.

Additionally: I wasn’t sure what I was going to title this piece, until I came across one of the comments to the above which likened our current situation to the mess that Rome found itself in roughly 1800 years ago. It’s a very apt comparison, IMHO.

Looking forward to a feudal America, brought to you by liberals

Lately we’ve been seeing Democrats, who at this point would more accurately be labelled “Communists”, advocating for 70% or higher tax rates for “the wealthy.”

This is idiocy, but it’s also concerning, given the relentless progress of the left that many of us have witnessed over our lifetimes. They may not be able to achieve 70% now, but, given the utter lack of balls within the GOP, it’s only a matter of time.

Unfortunately, the Commies actually believe that they’ll be able to level out the income distribution graph with this sort of strategy. The reality is closer to the opposite: the wealthiest of the wealthy, aka the 1%, or more accurately the 0.1%, are untouchable. Mere politicians can’t touch them, and that is pretty much an inexorable law of nature. However, Commie politicians are not going to simply accept this fact and go home. No, they are going to guess how much money they would be getting from their 70% rate, apply that to the next lower rungs of the income distribution, and call it a victory, even though it would have the net effect of skewing the income distribution even worse than it already is.

What’s more, I suspect the billionaires know this, and that is part of why they support leftist politicians. It’s sheer greed, knowing they’ll be safe while the Commies wipe out the middle class in the name of “tax the rich!” They know the greatest threat to their hold on power is the middle class.

Idiots.

What’s perversely interesting to speculate on, though, is what might happen after that sort of taxation becomes the norm. When the middle class starts getting taxed at 70%, a lot of them are just going to quit their jobs and join the ranks of the poor, hoping they’ll get something in the process. What then? Will we have something like in the late Roman empire, where something very similar happened and the emperor responded by saying, “No, you’re not allowed to quit.” And then, when people stayed in their unprofitable jobs for their entire lives but their sons, not being fools, decided that no way were they going to throw away their lives like that, the next emperor responded by saying, “No, you’re not allowed to abandon the profession of your father.” Is that where we’re headed? Because that, friends and neighbors, is how feudalism got started: Farmers being bound to the land because, for generations, farming had not been profitable, but if someone didn’t keep them there, then the empire would starve. Meanwhile, other, more mobile professions probably snuck out of the reaches of imperial authority and no doubt contributed greatly to the collapse of the empire by doing so.

Look for this to happen in America over the next few generations, once the Commies get their way. Or, maybe the whole mess will just fall apart before we ever get to that point. One can always hope, right?

Trump to address the nation tonight

President Trump is going to address the nation on prime time television tonight, in relation to building The Wall.  I will of course attempt to tune in on YouTube or somewhere like that, although I won’t be surprised if I run into problems.  (Seems like I always run into internet problems when Trump addresses the nation, but never at any other time.  Weird.)

Anyway, my money is on him NOT declaring a state of emergency in relation to building the wall.

If he was really planning on declaring an emergency, he wouldn’t be talking about it and thereby giving the opposition a chance to prepare a solid legal challenge.

It’s a negotiating technique. Hint that something worse could be in store if the opposition doesn’t get their ass in gear and agree to the current terms of the deal.

If I’m wrong, though, that would be really cool. What he ought to do is declare a state of emergency and when some liberal judge inevitably throws up an injunction,  declare the judge to be an enemy agent and subject to arrest. We could keep Gitmo populated with liberal judges for the foreseeable future! Heheheh.

 

Days gone by

For some reason today I found myself wondering about the old The Spearhead blog, which used to be located at the-spearhead.com (don’t go there now, though—the site which currently owns that domain is pretty fishy looking).

I’d count The Spearhead as one of the first three or four manosphere blogs that I’d ever read on a regular basis, and for a long time it was my first blog read of the day, every day. It was a tremendous resource.

I did a quick search to see if there was some kind of archive available. There didn’t appear to be one readily available. Further searching may turn something up, but for now, this is the best tribute to The Spearhead that I was able to locate:

Well This is Awkward…

If I ever do find a real archive of what was once the nexus of the early Manosphere, perhaps the most influential blog of its day, I’ll post it in the “MIA” section in the sidebar.

Crafting a New, Socialist History

The liberals (i.e. socialists) have their sights set on Laura Ingalls Wilder. There was some obscure literary award which bore her name, but which was recently renamed due to the fact that her books contain “‘expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values’ based on Wilder’s portrayal of black people and Native Americans.”

As I sit here, writing this, I wonder if I actually have the energy or inclination to slog through the layers of bullshit that are being slung here.

The truth is, not really. However, I am also highly annoyed, having been a young fan of these books myself.

Note that they don’t appear to be flat-out claiming that Laura Ingalls Wilder herself was a racist or a bigot, an allegation which would be more contentious. They are instead focusing on  depiction of racism and stereotypes in the books. My guess is what they find most objectionable is in relation to “Indians.” Laura’s mother was definitely not a fan of Native Americans at all, and more than once (as I recall) insisted that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Even in the relatively racist 1970’s when I first read these books, I remember feeling a bit shocked at that statement. What I also remember, though, is that it was presented in the context of a debate between Laura’s parents, where her mother was firmly anti-Indian, but her father took an opposing view. Furthermore, since he was also the person who actually spoke with them, on the rare occasions when there was any direct interaction at all, his viewpoint inevitably comes through as the more credible of the two.  Laura never advocated her mother’s opinion, although she did report on it.  I’m guessing, though, that this is part of the problem: Liberals don’t even want people to know that, at one time, such a completely shocking opinion was held by ordinary, respectable, likeable people like Laura’s mother–even though the fact that many people clearly felt that way at the time actually supports the liberal narrative in the first place!

There were undoubtedly some other things relating to Native Americans that liberals find objectionable too, but the above example is the most flagrant one, so, as such, it serves well enough to illustrate the point.

As for what they are complaining about in reference to “black people”, well, that’s a little harder to suss out.  There was, as I recall, one black character in the entire series of books, a doctor, who treated the family for malaria in the second book. Obviously, the libtards are not complaining about him, right? A black doctor in the early 1870’s is about the most progressive thing you can come up with, I would think, especially since he was a real life guy and people have identified who he actually was. So what could the problem be? Reading about this issue on another blog, one commenter remarked that, perhaps the objection is to the following:

They were probably referring to “Little Town on the Prairie,” where Laura’s father and two other men don blackface and sing and joke as ‘darkies.’

That could be it. I, myself, had totally forgotten about that section. Of course, people used to do that. (I even remember it myself as late as 1984 or so, when students in my high school put on a production of the musical “Showboat.”  One of the featured songs in that musical is “Old Man River,” sung by a black character. Well, my  high school only had one black student in the entire school, and he wasn’t a singer, so they put a white student with a baritone voice in blackface and had him sing the song. The response of the student body was a bit of mild laughter because, frankly, the guy looked silly in the makeup, especially with the spotlight on him, which made the makeup look a sort of comical blue-ish color.  But, no one there thought there was anything offensive about what was being done.  From what I recall, condemning the practice of white actors in blackface started in the late 1980’s as a means of attacking fraternities on college campuses, not because black people were objecting to it themselves. But, I could be wrong.)

I suspect, though, that the major issue that the libs have with these books is simply the fact that here are all these white people out on the frontier, not only surviving under really harsh conditions but building a new nation in the process, without any black people around at all, and they even dare to do it without personally slaughtering any Native Americans or anything. That, of course, runs exactly counter to the narrative that libtards want people to believe, namely that there was no aspect of the development of America in which African Americans did not play an essential role, and, of course, throughout all of this, whites were engaged in continual massacre of Native Americans at all times. Nope – Heaven forbid that any young people should be exposed to an account of some stuff as it actually happened.

This gets to a more fundamental point about what’s going on here, and about liberalism itself, which is this: What liberals, being socialists, probably find more threatening than anything else about these books is that, due to the fact that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a primary source, meaning she wrote about historical events that actually happened to her, these books can be considered a reliable reporting of history. Not only that, but the “Little House” books have always been popular with children, i.e. people at an age when their lifelong opinions and beliefs are still being formed. Liberals hate all of that, because primary sources are hard to refute, and they certainly don’t want to risk having young people form their own, non-liberal-approved beliefs. What liberals, i.e. socialists, want more than anything is to be able to impose their own made-up version of history on people, as a means of instilling Marxist beliefs in everyone. Having a series of popular children’s books out there which is actually accurate represents a real problem to them. The books can’t be discredited on historical grounds, so instead they have to be discredited on the grounds of racism. In a world without primary sources, there would be no obstacle to crafting a completely new, socialist-approved “history.” That’s what this is ultimately about.

There is an irony in this, of course.  I’d actually been thinking recently about the Little House books, but in the sense of how effective they were at promulgating a feminist viewpoint in children of my and my parents’ generations. I believe they actually played a major role in that, for quite a lot of people. That means, however, that the current changes also serve as a good example of the ongoing deterioration of the liberal coalition, and, in that sense, I suppose the downgrading of these books to verboten status can be considered good news.  I suppose.  I still don’t like it, though.