Log in

guilty white: recovering sexist, racist [entries|friends|calendar]

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Doomed [17 Feb 2006|04:29pm]
As of today, not one person of the 18 who have reviewed Paul Auster's latest novel on Amazon has understood it. The allegory, the bitter irony, the hypocrisy, the whoring, the self-absorption (he mentions the Weimar Republic for a reason) was so unsubtle it almost bludgeoned me to death, and still not a single reviewer took any notice of it whatsoever (a "sugary," "happy", "amusing" novel?!). America, you are doomed. Because Paul Auster is right: you don't have a clue.

The Washington Post reviewer had this to say:
What's that? Paul Auster jockeying for a spot on the midcult must-read list? Wait a second -- he writes intricately structured, darkly ironic novels of ideas, doesn't he? Don't worry. He still can; just witness Oracle Night, his 2003 meditation on literature's puzzling relationship to consciousness. Still, for whatever reason, Auster has decided that the time has come to try something much more conventional: a big-hearted, life-affirming, tenderly comic yarn. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But really, how will this piece of candy be greeted by those who have grown accustomed to the darker, stronger stuff?

But it's not candy! Writing a novel about people who avoid reality at all costs is not the same thing as avoiding reality at all costs. The quote at the end of the review pretty much sums up Auster's critique, and yet the reviewer himself has the tomfoolery of Tom (the character who utters the words) and embraces the dangerous philosophy that says "when a person is lucky enough to live inside a story, to live inside an imaginary world, the pains of this world disappear."
4 comments|post comment

The Hypocrisy of Canada's "Tolerance" [17 Feb 2006|01:10am]

To say Canada's tolerance is hypocritical is to state the obvious, but these are times in which what used to be obvious has become obscure.
post comment

How to parody a parody: impossible [15 Feb 2006|10:22pm]
A guy starts a blog parodying liberal non-thinking and almost no one seems to get the joke. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005054.html

People say they are fortunate to know me, as my gifted insights are relentlessly instructive. Of course, as an accomplished polymath, I can speak authoritatively about anything...but my biggest goal in life is to apply my expansive mind to make The Earth a more compassionate place. I have three Ph.D's!

post comment

Darwinesque [13 Feb 2006|03:15pm]
Oh my oh my. Did you know that Darwinism is one of the core foundational concepts of Scientology? I just read something about that, and it really makes you wonder. Scientology has already been linked to occult beliefs by many people who have investigated it; Darwin has, too. Not surprising. All those people who make fun of Tom Cruise and then make fun of all the people who don't believe in Darwin's theory are actually helping the Scientology "one-world order" agenda. L. Ron Hubbard loves you, atheists of the world!

And in totally unrelated news (or maybe not? he does have some alienist leanings. "I'm Not From Here"? Space pitchers in his album liner notes), I love the cover of Sondre Lerche & the Faces Down's latest. Very Chet:

Image hosting by Photobucket
post comment

A song for the times [12 Feb 2006|12:12pm]
Prefab Sprout - Here on the Eerie

It's much more beguiling than children at play.
The mind meets dilemma with a heart in decay.
How they reconcile art with... What was I going to say?
I called because you're in a position to help,
With a limited talent, but impossible wealth.
How they reconcile love with...
It sure is a problem...
But don't go away.

Cool critique of new Gomorrah, or schoolboy crush on Che Guevara,
face yourself or... Give it away.
Hearts grow numb and consience weary, mutiny here on the Eerie,
face yourself or... Give it away

Don't start pretending you've feelings of anguish,
if you'd prefer to dance.
Please stop talking of things you know nothing.
The truth well will make you ill.

So chew on the safest, the blandest of food.
And avoid the specifics that might ruin the mood.
A universal prescription...
continues to elude.
Love becomes you, a happy burden
But other lives stay neatly curtained.
Recognize that, It won't go away.
Hearts grow numb, and conscience weary, mutiny here on the Eerie.
Face yourself or... give it away.

This star-crossed lovers business, astrologeewhizzness,
go rhyme your runes in June.
Don't turn tearful or mystical on me, I'm not your seventh son.
post comment

Detection [11 Feb 2006|06:18pm]
I love taking a class where I get to read & write about detective fiction. This is gonna be a fun essay to write... and away I go! Here's my opening:

In his essay 'The Simple Art of Murder', Raymond Chandler is severely critical of the mode of fiction known as the classic detective story, the most prominent practitioners of which have (he alleges) mastered "the art of fooling the reader without cheating him" (226). This type of story is written by and about the "English gentility and American pseudo-gentility" (Chandler 233), and is often nothing more than an artificial puzzle or logic problem-- a cardboard murder committed by a cardboard murderer, eventually solved by a cardboard detective. These stories, Chandler claims, "do not really come off intellectually as problems, and they do not come off artistically as fiction." (Chandler 231). Dashiell Hammett, on the other hand, is said to be representative of a newer, realistic style of detective fiction, which shares in an American tradition that Chandler traces back to Walt Whitman; that of "revolutionary debunking of both the language and material of fiction." (233). To put it simply, "Hammett took murder out of the Venetian vase and dropped it into the alley" (Chandler 234). In this essay I will demonstrate what it is that makes Hammett's writing realistic and artistic, particularly focusing on the character of the sleuth and the character of the criminal as depicted in The Maltese Falcon.
post comment

Leftism [11 Feb 2006|09:49am]
Etymology is a revealing science; words often say more than what they seem to say on the surface. For instance, if you trace "left" back to its origins you get:

c.1205, from Kentish form of O.E. lyft- "weak, foolish" (cf. lyft-adl "lameness, paralysis," E.Fris. luf, Du. dial. loof "weak, worthless")

The left-hand path, that's for sure. And the only time a left-thinking person can get me to agree with them is in the morning (when I'm still half-asleep and the sun is so blinding). You know what they call the morning star-- Lucifer. It also goes a long way towards explaining the modern school & workdays.

Ooooh, Paul Auster knows this, too. I just started his latest book (The Brooklyn Follies) and if I'm not mistaken he's really letting the Americans have it for being so stupid and trusting. Quote, from a character named Flora, the flower child, schizophrenic, born in 1969:
"My father is a dark man, and he lives in a dark wood. He pretends he's a bright man now, but that's only a trick. He's still dark. He'll always be dark--right up to the day he dies."
post comment

Interesting... [10 Feb 2006|02:11am]
This was written almost 300 years ago, but it could have been written yesterday:

I began with railing at her Books; the barbarous Design of exposing People that never had done her any Injury; she answer'd me she was become Misanthrope, a perfect Timon, or Man-Hater; all the World was out of Humour with her, and she with all the World, more particularly a Faction who were busy to enslave their Sovereign, and overturn the Constitution; that she was proud of having more Courage than had any of our Sex, and of throwing the first Stone, which might give a Hint for other Persons of more Capacity to examine the Defects, and Vices of some Men who took a Delight to impose upon the World, by the Pretence of publick Good, whilst their true Design was only to gratify and advance themselves.
-from Delarivier Manley's The Adventures of Rivella

The quote could easily be applied to the Bush crime family, could it not?
post comment

More clues: de Sade, the Fascist mentality [07 Feb 2006|02:17pm]
They just keep on coming, without me even trying.

The trouble with fascists:
post comment

Meat machines [07 Feb 2006|01:01pm]
It seems every time I get to wondering about something, along come clues to help with the detective work. I get to thinking about the implications of scientific materialism re: the soul, and it just so happens a book I'm reading (The Morality of Everyday Life by Thomas Fleming), comments on this, and points me in the direction of philosophers who discuss this exact question. Quote:

"At the beginning of his Treatise on Man, Descartes adopts the conventional view that man consists of soul and body, but he proceeds to ignore the former and to explain the functioning of the latter by imagining the body as a mere machine, and this analogy extends to perceptions, dreams, and feelings. The reduction of man to a "meat machine" (as the inventor Nikola Tesla later put it) reached an almost classical perfection in La Mettrie's L'Homme machine. It seemed an inevitable progression, after Descartes and Hobbes (who also employed an extended machine metaphor to describe man and society), to go from a mechanical explanation of human feelings and thoughts to treating man as nothing more than a machine.

La Mettrie's disciple, the Marquis de Sade, took the argument to its logical conclusion: If human passions are mere physiological itches, man's proverbial dignity is a fraud, and there is nothing--not even our normal revulsion against rape and torture--to stand in the way of treating other human beings as sex tools. From the materialistic perspective, nothing can be entirely unnatural."
post comment

She blinded me with science [05 Feb 2006|09:19pm]
Religions of the retarded (by which I mean money, science, sex, tyranny) are on the rise lately. For example, almost every day the evolution fanatics on Metafilter are trying to force their beliefs on others and arrogantly proclaiming that they, and they alone, have the answers. Someone even called for genocide of all who don't agree with Darwin. Even if they're joking, it does tell you a lot about the outlook of these folks. They say they have no religion, but they do: it's called science, a religion of the retarded! They are way more dangerous than the Christians they hate so much. At least Christians know to call a belief a belief and a religion a religion, unlike Darwinists who preach the gospel of "scientific fact" and vehemently oppose and malign anyone who isn't a member of their church. Oh, the irony.

See: exhibits A & B

I'm not saying that science is bunk, I'm just saying that as an end in and of itself it's a moth-eaten mythology, as Nabokov put it. It recognizes the system (which is wonderful!) but refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a creator (which is fatal to the soul). To use science as a means of getting at larger truths is a most excellent aim, but the problem is, it's more often than not used as a means to cut people off from larger truths. Freudian psychology is particularly notorious for doing this. Therapists are, indeed, the rapists of minds.
post comment

Dorothy L. Sayers quotes [01 Feb 2006|03:17am]
There are a billion or more quotable quotes I could fill this box with, but this one has a particular appeal. It's the kind of thing you don't encounter all that often--I guess that's because it's true (i.e. most people are idiots).

"...you have creative imagination, which works outwards, till finally you will be able to stand outside your own experience and see it as something you have made, existing independently of yourself. You're lucky."

"Do you really think so?" Hilary looked excited.

"Yes--but your luck will come more at the end of life than at the beginning, because the other sort of people won't understand the way your mind works. They will start by thinking you dreamy and romantic, and then they'll be surprised to discover that you are really hard and heartless. They'll be quite wrong both times--but they won't ever know it, and YOU won't know it at first, and it'll worry you."

"But that's just what the girls say at school. How did you know?... Though they're all idiots--mostly, that is."

"Most people are," said Wimsey, gravely, "but it isn't kind to tell them so. Have a heart; they can't help it ..."
post comment

Dorothy L. Sayers [30 Jan 2006|02:18am]
Her name has turned up in all sorts of intriguing contexts, and yet it's taken me this long to have picked up one of her books. Detective Fiction, indeed! She's ever so sly and sneaky, exactly what an author worthy of being called such should be.
post comment

B.S. [28 Jan 2006|02:33am]
Unlike Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit (a book that is characteristic of all that is loathsome about post-modernism, i.e. meta-wank that is what it's about: bullshit), Laura Penny's book, Your Call Is Important To Us: The Truth About Bullshit is an honest look at dishonesty, written by a thinking (and thus deeply concerned) person. Wonderful.
post comment

The View From 1776 [27 Jan 2006|03:29am]

Another great website, exposing "liberals" as the truth-hating, morally bankrupt commie-socialist-fascist liars that they are.
post comment

[24 Jan 2006|01:22am]
This article gives a good overview of how the Globalists operate. It's an America-centric piece, but nonetheless relevant to all people who oppose a One World Government.
post comment

More sanity [23 Jan 2006|06:32am]
Why I don't take feminists seriously:


He exposes the hypocrisy of feminists, and in such a subtle, hilarious way.

EDIT: Parts II and III are now up!

I love this guy.
post comment

Sanity [23 Jan 2006|02:11am]
Lawrence Auster's postings at VFR are sanity in an insane world.

On Liberalism and evil:
I don’t think that liberalism, at least at the start, consciously sets out to destroy the idea of evil. Rather, the destruction of the idea of evil is a secondary consequence of the primary experience, which is the loss of any effective belief in God or higher truth. The banishing of evil is the result of the banishing of God. This is the evolution of modern liberalism, centered on the needs and desires of man, who is naturally good.

On the fact-value distinction:
Traditionalist: sees facts about a thing, and its nature, and its objective value.

Modernist: sees facts about a thing, not its nature or its objective value.
post comment

[18 Jan 2006|02:18am]
Reading the works of Marxist, multicultural, anti-Western Culture writers makes me so angry, and since I've just been reading one such, I need to vent. The fact that so many of them can boldly declare "patriarchial white supremacist culture" to be the enemy indicates an astounding lack of comprehension or an equally astounding lack of shame. I went through my first 20 years of life blissfully unaware of the education I'd been deprived of by communist (or communist-influenced) teachers, and when I discovered what knowledge could be I was so full of outrage that they'd taken that away from me so I could be a lab rat in their social engineering experiments. Everyone should be free to be a commie if they want, but they should not be free to manipulate facts, tell lies and hide their political agenda, as is their habit. If it's so great, why the need for deception?

The people advancing "progressive" PC views are resenters, who would destroy Western culture to advance their own petty, mediocrity-infused interests (thanks to Marx, Freud and Darwin, who've done more for mediocrity than anyone else in the world's history). Some are useful idiots, some know exactly what they're doing. And sad to say, they've almost succeeded in their goal. They want to keep you ignorant that you have a soul, to reduce you to an animal by pathologizing man's noblest impulses, leaving you uncertain and lacking any convictions aside from the ones they've told you are acceptable. It's such a despicable act that no punishment seems equal to the crime.
post comment

Communism on campus [13 Jan 2006|02:18am]
I've noticed that there's a new emphasis on group work in many of the English Lit courses at U of T. After doing some research online, I've confirmed that this is written about in the educational mandates of the UN/Globalist/NWO cabal. Having to work in a group, as equals, each pulling his or her own weight, and failing or succeeding as a unit is a disgusting communistic idea meant to instill conformity and mediocrity. This new group work is not a tutorial, where you meet in a smaller section with a TA but still write essays and tests on your own. No, this is doing your coursework as a group, without a TA to instruct you.

They really aren't trying to hide the brainwashing agenda of modern "education" anymore; it's all out in the open. If they really wanted students to develop their intellects, the last thing they'd do is force them into a situation where majority rules and you're ignored or criticized if you don't agree with the general consensus. Oh well, I'll get through it, with a sense of humour and open eyes.
post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]