Blueprint of a Strange Mind...

Enslaved and Alcest Concert Review

2011-10-03T22:00:00.000-07:00

Enslaved and Alcest concert on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at Outland Live in Columbus, OH

If someone had told me at the start of the year that both Agalloch and Alcest would tour the United States in 2011, and that I'd miss both of them, I would've been in disbelief. Right now, I'm in disbelief.

I missed Alcest Saturday night because I arrived at the venue too late. I drove six and a half hours to find out, when I walked up to the girl taking tickets at the door, Alcest had just completed their set and left the stage. I felt absolutely sick.

On top of that, I'd either purchased the wrong ticket, or Ticketmaster sent me the wrong ticket, because when I handed my ticket to the girl at the door she showed me the ticket was for the Enslaved and Alcest show in Springfield, VA. So I had to cough up $17 to see Enslaved.

Enslaved was great, of course. I expected nothing less. Although I'm not gonna lie and pretend I enjoyed the show and had the time of my life. In all honesty, it was impossible for me to really absorb it and get into it. I was exhausted, physically and mentally, and for a large part of the set I sat on a couch in the back of the room and just listened. I wish they'd played more off Vertebrae, which is Enslaved's best album and one of the best black metal albums ever released. They did cover "Immigrant Song" by Zeppelin as an encore, which was awesome. The set was as follows, from what I can remember... I might've missed one or two in the middle of the set.

Setlist:

1. Axioma (intro)
2. Ethica Odini
3. Raidho
4. Fusion of Sense and Earth
5. Heimvegen
6. Ruun
7. Ground
8. Giants
9. As Fire Swept Clean the Earth
10. Allfaor Ooinn

Encore:

11. Drum Solo
12. Immigrant Song (Led Zeppelin cover)
13. Isa

Nicole Atkins and the Black Sea Concert Review

2011-06-21T14:06:00.000-07:00

Nicole Atkins and the Black Sea concert on Monday, June 20, 2011
at the Milestone Club in Charlotte, NC

This was a fantastic show. I didn't really know what to expect going in, since I'd never been to the Milestone Club before and I'd never seen Nicole Atkins before (so I didn't know what the draw would be). Stephen Warwick and the Secondhand Stories opened up, and man, what a fun band. If I hadn't been short on cash, I would've picked up their disk, Talking Machine. I don't know what all they played since I'm not familiar with their material, but I do know they played the song "Keep On," which is the last track on their album. They had a drummer, guitarist, stand up bass, and a trumpet player. Considering the only musical instrument I've ever played is a trumpet, I guess I have a special appreciation for it. I really enjoyed watching this band. I believe they're local out of Charlotte.

Nicole Atkins and the Black Sea didn't come on until 11:00pm or so.

Setlist:

1. Heavy Boots

2. Cry Cry Cry

3. Vitamin C (Can cover)

4. Party's Over

5. This Is For Love

6. Hotel Plaster

7. Maybe Tonight

8. Brooklyn's On Fire

9. You Come to Me

10. You Were The Devil

11. The Way it Is

12. Monterrey Honey (Cotton Matthew cover)

13. My Baby Don't Lie

14. Vultures

15. The Tower

Encore:

16. Neptune City

Nicole and her band were absolutely fantastic. She's very entertaining, and has a witty and personable sense of humor. The venue was near insufferably hot, thus the focus of a lot of humor (and discord). Seriously though, everyone in the audience was sweating, so you can imagine what the band looked like. I was afraid Nicole was going to pass out from a heat stroke. Regardless, she sounded great, and put her heart and soul into her performance.

She dedicated "Maybe Tonight" to a pregnant woman in the audience, "Neptune City" to Clarence Clemons, and "Brooklyn's On Fire" to the Milestone Club - saying she should rename it "The Milestone Club's on Fire." The merch girl played a tambourine, I believe, in a few songs, so Nicole introduced her. She said the merch girl actually made (hand crafted) the gold plated mirrors they had for sale, and called her "gildfinger," and sung "gildfinger" in the same pitch as "Goldfinger" (the James Bond theme song), and there for about a minute or so I had a deep yearning for Nicole to sing "Goldfinger" in its entirety; when she sang "gildfinger" I swear she sounded just like Shirley Bassey.

I was perfectly happy with the set. Granted, I think Neptune City is better than Mondo Amore, but I realize this tour is mostly meant to promote Mondo Amore, so I'm just happy they played as much off Neptune City as they did. "Heavy Boots," "Hotel Plaster," "Maybe Tonight," "Brooklyn's On fire," "The Way It Is," and "Vultures" are among my favorite tunes.

The tour poster I bought. I guess these were left over from the previous tour, because it says "wintertime" on it. Still, I like the design of it.

Robert Plant and the Band of Joy Concert Review

2011-05-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Robert Plant and the Band of Joy concert on Sunday, May 1, 2011
at Merlefest in Wilkesboro, NC

The Doobie Brothers get the Merlefest 2011 trophy, but Robert Plant & the Band of Joy came in second. This band should've had the prime time Saturday night spot instead of Lyle Lovett. They were much better. I could hardly believe I was seeing Robert Plant in Wilkesboro, NC. One thing has become apparent: the sky's the limit for this festival.

I couldn't watch much of the show because I had to work storage, again, starting at 4:00pm - thirty minutes after they took the stage. Opening up with Black Dog was pretty awesome though, however, from what I hear, the show got better as it went, making me wish I could've stuck around a bit longer.

Setlist:

1. Black Dog

2. Down to the Sea

3. Angel Dance

4. Black Country Woman

5. House of Cards

6. Monkey

7. Somewhere Trouble Don't Go

8. That's the Way

9. A Satisfied Mind

10. Satan Your Kingdom Must Come Down

11. Ocean of Tears

12. In the Mood

13. Please Read the Letter

14. House of the Holy

15. Ramble On

Encore:

16. Harms Swift Way

17. Gallows Pole

18. And We Bid You Goodnight

One thing should be made clear. This isn't a Zeppelin cover band. It's a group of musicians Plant has assembled that blend his English hippy-folk vibe with their rootsier Americana. The result is a rich layered sound blossoming with talent and technical proficiency. Very different from that raw rock Zeppelin sound I think a lot of folks were expecting. The Zeppelin covers were't Zeppelin-esque at all. But they sounded great. Plant is a musician in the truest of sense. He's influenced by a variety of genres - rock, folk, bluegrass, Americana, etc… it adds a great level of depth to this band's sound.

The Doobie Brothers Concert Review

2011-05-01T03:24:00.000-07:00

The Doobie Brothers concert on Friday, April 29, 2011 at Merlefest in Wilkesboro, NC

Setlist:

1. Take Me in Your Arms (Rock Me)

2. Jesus is Just Alright

3. Dangerous

4. Rockin' Down the Highway

5. Clear as the Driven Snow

6. Nobody

7. Far From Home

8. World Gone Crazy

9. Chateau

10. Takin' it to the Streets

11. Don't Start Me (to) Talkin'

12. Little Betty Pretty One

13. Black Water

14. Long Train Runnin'

Encore:

15. China Grove

16. Without You

17. Listen to the Music

To my dismay, I didn't get to watch this concert, I only got to listen. I had to work storage from 9:00pm - close, so all I could do was concentrate on the magnificent sound coming from the Watson Stage - electric guitars (beautiful tone), acoustics, saxophone, harmonica, bass, drums, etc. This band can ROCK. They're as rockin' a live act as I've ever heard at Merlefest. They blend their instruments together so well, do these amazing three or four-part vocal harmonies, jam out with prolonged instrumental work, and really get the audience dancing. They put their energy and their emotions into their music, and the audience's reaction reflects it. Vocally, they remind me of Crosby, Stills and Nash and The Beatles. Musically, I think they're more influenced by the rootsy approach - sort of like the Allman Brothers. I definitely recommend checking these guys out if they come to your town; they don't disappoint.

Explosions in the Sky Concert Review

2011-04-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

Explosions in the Sky concert on Sunday, April 3, 2011 at Amos' Southend in Charlotte, NC

The third post-rock show of the year for me. And it didn't disappoint. Amos' Southend was packed. There were as many people there as there were at the Avenged Sevenfold and Black Tide show I went to back in '07, which I didn't expect considering the region's weak post-rock scene. There are tons of kiddies in the Charlotte area, and neighboring areas, that love that A7X/Carolina Rebellion-type of music (you know tickets for Carolina Rebellion are going for $200-$300 now?), but there aren't a ton of kids that like post-rock. The crowd really was surprising. I got the vibe there were a lot of concert virgins there though. I stood on the balcony to the left of the stage (from the audience's POV), with a bunch of kids who I think were part of a youth group. There must've been twenty or more of them. When the opening band, The Octopus Project, said "fuck" on stage, they all looked at each other in puzzlement. Needless to say, regardless of the venue being packed, it wasn't the most vivacious audience I've ever been apart of.

The Octopus Project was a funky type of post-rock/electronic band. They weren't mind-numbingly good by any means, but they were entertaining and fun to listen to. I can see why EITS would choose them as an opener. The chick in the band played one really weird electronic instrument that made noises according to the frequency she neared and distanced her hands from its motion sensor. It made a high-pitched whirring noise. I think the crowd really dug them. They got about as much applause as Explosions in the Sky did.

Explosions in the Sky Setlist:

1. Postcard From 1952

2. The Birth and Death of the Day

3. Your Hand in Mine

4. Last Known Surroundings

5. The Only Moment We Were Alone

6. Catastrophe and the Curve

7. Let Me Back In

8. Greet Death

9. Trembling Hands

They played a lot of their new material, which isn't as good as some of their older stuff. "Postcard From 1952," "Last Known Surroundings," "Let Me Back In," and "Trembling Hands" are all from their 2011 release Take Care, Take Care, Take Care. I think it's a pretty solid album - not the best I've heard this year - but solid. Explosions in the Sky isn't going to write a 'bad' album. But it's pale in comparison to The Earth is Not a Cold Dead Place, How Strange, Innocence, All of a Sudden I Miss Everyone, etc… They did play two songs from The Earth is Not a Cold Dead Place, which was nice. I really really really wanted to hear "First Breath After Coma," but I don't think it'll be on a setlist for this tour.

Their sound was ace live. I think the dynamics of what this band does come across beautifully in a dark venue. They're one of those few bands that I'd actually say sound as good, if not better, live than on a disc. The guitar tone is crystal clear. The drumming is very martial in tone. That is, instead of playing a 4/4 kick heavy drumming style, Hrasky plays more tom and snare - the type of drumming similar to what you'd hear in a marching band. It helps to push the music during a slower, arpeggio paced song. When the drum beat speeds up, it's usually when the guitars are going hard and heavy. This band is centered around their beautiful guitar work though. Three guitar players, at times, and one bass, interlocking melodies. They can go loud and aggressive and they can be soft and sensitive. Like a lot of post-rock bands, many of their songs are crescendo driven. They build up slowly before reaching a climax. They are very technically proficient. They excel in playing and feeding off each other. Their style makes for a magnificent live performance.

I was so damn hungry during this show though. I feel like I could've enjoyed it even more if I hadn't have been thinking about eating.

It's easy to see how this band has become such a massively influential post-rock giant. They maintain their loyalty to the first wave of post-rock, but stray enough to create their own brand of innovation. I think they're close to solely responsible for this new wave of post-rock we're hearing these days. While their brand can't rival the GY!BE's and ASMZ's of the world, it's certainly created it's rightful spot in the genre. I look forward to seeing what direction it will take in the future.

Rush Concert Review

2011-04-03T01:53:00.000-07:00

Rush "Time Machine Tour" concert on Saturday, April 2, 2011 at the Greensboro Coliseum in Greensboro, NC

There were three negatives going in. One, I knew I had to be a ticket scalper since one of the guys I bought a ticket for backed out on me a few weeks ago. I told him I'd try to sell his ticket at the door, but if I couldn't, he'd owe me the price of the ticket. Two, since this show was inexplicably rescheduled from Friday, April 1 to Saturday, April 2 sometime earlier this week, it meant missing the Final Four. Three, I knew what they were going to play before I ever even entered the coliseum. I don't think the set list has changed once since the start of the first leg.

Rush Setlist:

1. The Spirit Of Radio

2. Time Stand Still

3. Presto

4. Stick It Out

5. Workin' Them Angels

6. Leave That Thing Alone

7. Faithless

8. BU2B

9. Freewill

10. Marathon

11. Subdivisions

- - - Intermission - - -

12. Tom Sawyer

13. Red Barchetta

14. YYZ

15. Limelight

16. The Camera Eye

17. Witch Hunt

18. Vital Signs

19. Caravan

20. *Drum Solo*

21. Closer To The Heart

22. 2112 (Part I: Overture & Part II: The Temple of Syrinx)

23. Far Cry

Encore:

24. La Villa Strangiato

25. Working Man

Three men on a stage have never produced such a sound. It was the best classic electric rock vibe I've ever heard live. These guys can PLAY. Peart delivered an awesome drum solo, as I expected him to, complete with a rotating "time machine" drum kit. This concert went on and on and on and on and on, it clocked out after at least three hours. After Subdivisions, Geddy said "were old men… we need a break." A twenty-minute intermission ensued.

Rush has experimented with different sounds throughout their career, and the purpose of this tour, as presented in the title of the tour, was to take the audience through the decades to experience their prowess and amazing repertoire. Many think of Rush as a very serious band that's all music and no play, others as some type of alternative heavy metal; but they are neither. They are a fun-loving progressive rock band, and they smiled often and danced around on stage simply having fun while displaying amazing musicianship. The first set had some great stuff, including one of my favorites, "Leave That Thing Alone," an instrumental with some really catchy guitar work. "The Spirit of Radio," "Time Stand Still," "Freewill," "Marathon," and "Subdivisions" are all great songs. There was a large screen behind the stage they played films on. Often it was a clock counting down to a particular year - usually signifying the year of a particular song release of the song getting ready to be played, or in one case, an album release. During the intermission, the clock counted up to 1980, the year Moving Pictures was released. At the start of the second set, "Tom Sawyer" came on and they played Moving Pictures in full.

They also played some material from their upcoming release, Clockwork Angels, notably, "BU2B," and "Caravan."

They only played the first two parts to 2112. I would've loved to see the whole thing played. But it is a twenty-minute song… and they played for over three hours as it was… I guess these old men can only do so much.

But for old men, they still rock pretty hard.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor Concert Review

2011-03-23T22:53:00.000-07:00

Godspeed You! Black Emperor concert on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at the 40 Watt Club in Athens, GA

I made plans some time ago to go see this one with one of my cousins, which is incredibly appropriate since he's the one responsible for introducing me to the post-rock genre a few years ago, and in particular, introducing me to Godspeed You! Black Emperor. There's not another soul I know (personally) whose musical tastes, and whose reasons for listening to music, are so similar and so compatible with mine. With that said, this was an incredibly highly anticipated event for me. When GY!BE announced the tour back in September I could hardly believe it. But at the same time I figured it would happen eventually, considering the greatness of the project. It comes as no surprise that this band has sold out nearly every venue it's been hosted by, including Athens, GA.

I had to do some research before this show, which has been an ongoing thing for a few weeks now, not because I was unfamiliar with the band's music, but because I'm still not completely familiar with all the subnames of the songs. I'm only real familiar with the full names of the tracks (i.e.: " Sleep," Static," "Providence," etc etc). I know a few subnames of particular portions of tracks I like, but not all of them.

First of all, it should be known that I had to sacrifice a day of school to attend this show, which meant rescheduling an exam. Since it was roughly a 5-hour drive from northwestern NC to Athens, and the show ended at 1:00am, it put me back around 6:00am, on a day of two exams (on top of the one I had to reschedule). As far as school goes, the timing could't have been worse. But it was the chance I took when I ordered these tickets before the start of the semester, and the bad timing didn't come as a surprise. Nevertheless, nothing was stopping me from going to this show.

Athens is a real neat town. It reminded me a lot of Asheville or Wilmington in that it's maintained an element of natural beauty despite being metropolitan. Plus, it just has that hipster vibe to it. This show was right in downtown. Upon arrival, I wasn't surprised Godspeed You! Black Emperor chose it as their one destination of the South.

After eating at a local pizza restaurant, we walked down to the venue and got in line outside and stood there, waiting, for at least an hour. Everyone was really friendly. Two dudes inside the venue told us they'd driven 14 hours from Texas. I thought "holy shit… I thought I was a hardcore Godspeed fan…" I wouldn't be surprised if the band is anti-South. We should probably consider ourselves lucky they managed one date as far south as Georgia.

I was surprised they had merch for sale. I figured the band was anti-merch as well. I remember reading somewhere their philosophy was "make your own Godspeed You! Black Emperor t-shirt." They're so anti-capitalism and consumerism. I'll bet Constellation forced them to sell some stuff. They had two t-shirts for sale at $20 each, all their albums, and a beautiful glossy silkscreen poster for $20. I went with the poster. (See picture below)

As far as standing position in front of the stage, we were pretty close to the front. There might've been two rows of people in front of us? The most irritating part of the night was crowd chatter during the opening act. The opener was an individual artist who played multiple guitars. He was actually really impressive and technically proficient. His playing reminded me of Trace Bundy (except he probably wasn't quite that good), with more wailing and capo switches. He was extremely kind and gracious considering the rudeness from his audience.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor Setlist:

1. Hope Drone

2. Lift Yr. Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven

3. Gathering Storm

4. "Murray Ostril" ...They Don't Sleep Anymore on the Beach

5. Monheim

6. 9-15-00 (outro) / The Albanian

7. Atomic Clock

8. Chart #3

9. World Police and Friendly Fire

10. Slow Moving Trains

11. The Cowboy

12. Moya

13. Blaise Bailey Finnegan III

14. String Loop Manufactured During Downpour… [Outro]

The only one I'm not positive about is the outro to 9-15-00 played after Monheim. They played a lot of interludes in-between songs, a lot of which were hard to decipher, and they ran together. They definitely played something between Monheim and Atomic clock. It might have been a snippet of The Albanian, a track I'm fairly unfamiliar with, but I'm not confident. They might have mixed 9-15-00 and The Albanian together (which I feel was probably the case, but again, not sure). One thing became apparent after seeing this band live, and my cousin commented on it as well. Just like A Silver Mt. Zion, this band is incredibly influenced by free jazz. A lot of their interludes were very chaotic and uncoerced, much like in free jazz. I think the chaotic aspect of their music is probably symbolic to their anarchistic tendencies. A lot of their songs disintegrate from something beautiful into something chaotic and tumultuous. They did this even more so live. Blaise Bailey Finnegan III, at around the 14:00 or 15:00 minute mark, went into something highly varied from what it sounded like on Slow Riot. The intro, Hope Drone, is another example, as is virtually all the interludes that consisted of tons of feedback and reverb.

I've come to realize nearly everything this band does is done to convey a message. Whether it's the monologues or voice tracks (and the music that encompasses them), the song titles, the sound that's meant to evoke a particular emotion, the artwork… nothing is inconsequential. The film loops are no exception. The films played during the set were fantastic. Nicely contrasted. My favorites were the ones, I think played during Moya, that consisted of ancient script-type writing, and even occultist symbols. Some also looked to be Hebrew. Others included typed texts from war documents. They flashed so quickly I could't make out what they said, for the ones in English that is. I only saw single words as I focused in, and that was enough to let me know they were documents regarding wars or foreign policy of some type (very fitting for BBF3).

I also liked how the band did absolutely no talking during the show. One track ran into another. It was like one long 2 1/2 hour cohesive piece of music, woven together.

As I expected, they sounded amazing. Monheim and Moya, in my opinion, were the best played tracks of the night. My cousin liked what they did with BBF3. I honestly couldn't have asked for a better setlist. I'm not sure there's a single "bad" part to any Godspeed song. It's just some are better than others, and they played a lot of good ones last night. Not to boast, but I think Athens might've gotten the best setlist of the tour so far. The only song missing that would've been amazing to hear, that they've played at a few previous shows (DC for sure), is The Sad Mafioso. But the set ran well over two hours as is. It was very strategic for them to put on that recording of String Loop Manufactured During Downpour as an outro. It prevented the audience from being able to ask for an encore. They slowly left the stage one by one, waving to the audience as they went, while we listened to "where are you going?" over and over along with the droning of distorted guitars. It was awesome.

Just to critique though, there were some variances I wasn't crazy about. One of them was Efrim's slight switching of the notes played during Chart #3. Recall the notes of the gentle atmospheric strumming of the guitar while we listen to that insane man describe his dream about passing through corridors and dark serpentines and penetrating to the most high god. Yeah, Efrim didn't play those notes as they were on the album. Also, there was no trumpet or French horn in Lift Yr. Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven. That one's pretty picky, but it's something I noticed; I'm sure there's nothing they could have done about it. I don't think any of them even play horns. Also, during the same track (Lift Yr. Skinny Fists), maybe it was just me, but the drum beat seemed a little different.

During World Police and Friendly Fire

During Moya

the 40 Watt Club

My beautiful, glossy, silkscreen tour poster

Simply put, I've never been to a show like this before. It was absolutely fantastic. If I didn't have school, I'd travel long distances to see it again. The show is unique because the band is unique. There is no other band that even comes close to being similar to Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Now that I've seen them in concert, I can spend my days yearning for a new album.

Caspian Concert Review

2011-03-10T14:45:00.000-08:00

Caspian concert on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at Snug Harbor in Charlotte, NC

So far this year has been a pleasant surprise for concert goers of my type in the NC region. 3 awesome post-rock concerts have/are hitting the southeast in a 4-week span: Caspian, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and Explosions in the Sky. On top of that, Rush has launched a second leg of their Time Machine Tour which is hitting the eastern part of the U.S. starting in late March. All that, combined with a road trip up to Cleveland to see Agalloch, is making for a damn fine start to 2011.

I went to this show with two buds, neither of whom cared about seeing Caspian (probably because they've never heard of Caspian, and, I'm not sure they're fond of this genre of music), but both of whom were gladly willing to pay the low price of $8 a ticket to ride down to Charlotte with me and make an evening of it.

The venue was one I'd never been to before, called Snug Harbor. It was tiny. I probably could've sprinted the length of the room in about 2 seconds flat. All the employees looked like pirates. Skull & crossbone flags hung all over the place. Regardless of its size, it was a neat atmosphere. I was worried about a low turnout at first. When we walked in there not long after the doors had opened it was deserted. A few pirates stood around and drunk beer, there were the occasional stragglers at the bar (the type of which were obviously oblivious to whatever music was about to be played), and one woman voiced opposition when I demanded the bar tender change the channel from CNN to the Big East basketball tournament. By the time Caspian took the stage though it had filled in. I'm glad; I wanted Caspian's first show in Charlotte to have a decent turnout. Charlotte's never been the place for much of a post-rock scene.

 The opening bands were't very impressive. Chiaroscuro was the more impressive of the two, being bland post-rock. Very little sound variance (everything they played had the same structure: start off soft and melodic and quickly turn into something more heavy and less melodic). They weren't bad bad though. Native was much worse. They were a post-hardcore sounding band with screaming vocals and a bunch of young kids playing instruments. Considering their age, the instruments were all right, but the vocals made the band near unlistenable. I tried to drown them out sitting at the bar watching the Marquette vs West Virginia game.  

Caspian took the stage around 11:00pm or so, or maybe a tad later.   

Caspian Setlist:  

1. Of Foam and Wave 
2. Malacoda 
3. Moksha 
4. Quovis
 5. Further Up 
6. Further In 
7. The Raven 
8. Sycamore

   I was pretty happy with what they played. Obviously, I've never seen them live before so it's not like I had to worry about seeing repeats. Moksha and Sycamore are two of Caspian's best songs, so I was happy with those. I really would've liked to hear Brombie or Concrescence or Loft or Last Rites though. They had a decent variety of material from all their releases. They didn't play an encore, which I thought was a bit strange. The crowd kept yelling for one after Sycamore, but Philip was like "the bass is broken" and "we don't usually play encores," and so they didn't. It would've been amazing to go out on Brombie or Last Rites. Their sound was great. Beautiful guitar tone - especially for the beginning of Sycamore. The tone catered to their softer material. Concrescence would've sounded amazing. I was standing left of the stage right at the front, so it was all in my face. Very emotional show.  

The crowd was pretty decent except for one drunk guy up front who kept thrashing around like he was at a Slayer concert.   

Overall though, great performance by Caspian.

Algeria: From the French Conquest to Abdelaziz Bouteflika

2011-03-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

An essay I did for Middle East Politics...

Algeria’s first inhabitants were Berbers[1], who still account for a significant minority of the population today. Algeria was made part of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire by Hayreddin Barbarossa, and his brother, in 1517, and they stayed under Ottoman rule until the French invaded and captured Algiers in 1830. In 1830 Algeria officially became a French territory – part of the French Colonial Empire. This accounts for that classic case of western imperialism and colonialism in this particular country, a theme that has been rampant across the Middle East over the decades. In fact, the bulk of Algeria’s history over the past 200 years is a case of western colonialism.

The conquest of Algeria by the French was a long and violent period. The French government’s entrance into Algeria was not intent on colonialism at first (they wanted to settle a debt dispute with the Turkish Dey of Algiers), but the French quickly became interested in the vast amounts of Algerian territory. What quickly turned into a conquest resulted in significant bloodshed and death, and, along with disease and epidemics, which swept the region, Algeria’s population was reduced by nearly one-third between 1830 and 1872[2]. During this period political and economic power were held primarily by the minority of white settlers (a trend we’ve seen in many instances throughout the Middle East – power in the hands of an extraneous party). The indigenous Muslim minority did not have equal rights. Algeria has long asked the French officials to acknowledge the genocide they committed in Algeria during the 130 plus years of occupation. The French parliament says “we’ll leave that up to the historians.”

The conquest was a slow process due to resistance from people such as Emir Abd al-Qadir[3], Cheikh Mokrani, Cheik Bouamama, the tribe of Ouled sid, etc… most of these oppositions were religiously motivated. Villages revolted and they were usually slaughtered; any peasant that resisted was killed. The conquest was not technically complete until the early 1900’s. Settlers from Spain, France, Italy, and Malta moved in to farm Algerian coastal plains. They occupied significant portions of Algerian cities. With new agricultural techniques, the French profited from the vast amount of land.

The French colonial regime stifled and undermined traditional Muslim Algerian culture (the bulk of Algerians were and still are Sunni Muslims). By French law, Muslims were not allowed to leave their homes (or villages) without permission, they could not carry firearms, they could not hold public meetings, etc To have full rights, they had to become French citizens, which meant renouncing Islamic law.

Starting at the end of the 19th century, people of European descent in Algeria (or natives like Spanish people in Oran[4]), as well as the native Algerian Jews (typically Mizrachi [5] and sometimes Sephardic[6] in origin), became full French citizens[7]. Few Muslim Algerians did, however.

There was an Algerian nationalist movement which started around the time of WWI and grew to maturity by the 1920’s and 1930’s. It was not a particularly large movement, but it was fueled by a small class of influential Muslim “évolué’s.” Most of these people came from wealthy Muslim families that had managed to insinuate themselves into the French colonial system, “educating themselves.” Other nationalists were Algerians who had served for the French Army during WWI. Nationalism was never the movement in Algeria that it was, per say, in Egypt under Nasser and Sadat or in Turkey under Ataturk.

In 1954 the National Liberation Front of Algeria, a socialist political party, launched an anticolonial war to liberate Algeria from the French. This conflict doesn’t end until 1962, when Algeria gets independence. Some historians claim 3 million Algerians were killed between 1830 and 1962 by the French, and a large percentage of those during the French-Algerian War of 1954-1962 (one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the entire region).

In 1962 a republic is proclaimed with Ahmed Ben Bella as president, a former, and one of the original leaders, of the National Liberation Front (FLN). Nearly one million French and other Europeans left the country when the French army withdrew. Post-colonial Algeria and France have maintained relatively friendly relations throughout the years, though sometimes it’s difficult. The next few decades were difficult times for Algeria. They underwent a difficult period of change and adjustment, emerging as a staunch socialist state (under the FLN), calling themselves: the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria. In 1965 Ahmed Ben Bella was overthrown by the military, and Houari Boumédienne became head of state. During this time Islamic values were restored and Islam became the religion of the state. It was also the religion of Algerian leaders.

Under Ben Bella the Algerian government had already become increasingly socialistic and authoritarian. This trend continued through Boumédienne’s government. Agriculture was collectivized. Industrialization was kicked into full gear. Oil extraction facilities were nationalized. The state became much more militaristic.

Boumédienne’s successor, Chadli Bendjedid, was president of Algeria from 1979 to 1992. His government vowed to root out government corruption; affirm Algeria’s Arab-Islamic culture, traditional Muslim and social values, liberalize the socialist economy, etc. Chadli Bendjedid had to deal with the West but at the same time take note of the devotion of his people to Islam. His intentions of reform were met with very slow progress. His sluggish implementation of desperately needed democratic principles resulted in riots and outbreaks of violence in 1985, and then again in 1988. In 1991 the Islamic Salvation Front[8] was brought to power, a party very popular among the Algerian people and the FLN. They successfully stopped elections. At this time Algeria’s military (a junta) took control of the government, and forced Bendjedid out of power. Parliament was suspended, and a long bloody Civil War ensued.

The Algerian Civil War was mostly a conflict between the Algerian Government (the military dictatorship) and various Islamic rebel groups, such as the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria (a violent organization that wanted to overthrow the military dictatorship and replace it with an Islamic state), the Islamic Front for Armed Jihad[9], the Islamic Salvation Army (responsible for dozens of massacres across the country), etc… and other Islamist extremist groups seeking to take power. These groups committed terror and attacked governmental positions, in the same manner as many terrorists have done in Afghanistan in recent years. The war was marked, to a large extent, by divisions between Islamic fundamentalism and secularism. It has been estimated to have cost as much as 200,000 Algerian lives between the end of 1991 and 2002.

A ceasefire was eventually negotiated with the Islamic Salvation Front, disbanding it, and other liberation fronts in exchange for amnesty.

The state of emergency that was declared in 1992, at the beginning of Algeria’s civil war, was declared on February 22, 2011. Abdelaziz Bouteflika has been Algeria’s president since 1999. His state is currently being subject to protests, as are multiple places throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The protests started on December 28, 2010. Causes cited include the high rate of unemployment, inflation on the price of foods, a lack of housing and overall poor living conditions, governmental corruption and infrastructure problems, restrictions on freedom of speech, education, health care, etc.[10] The CNCD wants the immediate end of the government of Abdelaziz Bouteflika.[11] His government is being accused of the same problems that inspired uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

In summary, government and regime changes in Algeria can be accounted for by two things throughout the country’s history; one being the transfer of power after French rule, and the other being public and political unrest and the people’s dissatisfaction with their government. We might be getting ready to see another one.

[1] Berbers: A people indigenous to North Africa west of the Nile Valley. The Berbers date back to 3000 BC.

[2] "Algeria | Wiki Algeria." Algeria. Arab Lounge, 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2011 <http://www.africa.com/algeria>.

[3] Emir Abd al-Qadir: Algerian Islamic political and military leader who led a struggle against the French Invasion.

[4] Oran: The second largest city in Algeria; located on the northwest Mediterranean coast.

[5] Mizrachi Jews: Jews descended from Jewish communities in the Middle East; Jews from the Arab world.

[6] Jews who are descended from modern day Spain and Portugal; follow traditions and customs of 15th and pre-15th century Jews from the Iberian Peninsula.

[7] "Colonizing and Decolonizing French Algeria, 1830-1962." SEMP: Evidence-based Disaster Management: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation. Suburban Emergency Management Project, 26 Dec. 2007. Web. 02 Mar. 2011. <http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=487>.

[8] The Islamic Salvation Front was an Islamic political party, founded by Ali Belhadj in 1989, since outlawed; blamed for the assassination of Mohamed Boudiaf.

[9] The Islamic Front for Armed Jihad: A militant Islamist organization during the Algerian civil war that called for a violent overthrow of Algeria’s secular government; wanted a government based on Sharia’s Law.

[10] Djamel Belayachi. "Algeria protests take place amid 30,000 police deployment - Afrik-news.com : Africa news, Maghreb news - The african daily newspaper". Afrik-news.com. Retrieved 2011-02-13.

[11] "Algeria Protests under Way - Africa - Al Jazeera English." Al Jazeera English. 19 Feb. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2011. <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201121943659150329.html>.

Bahrain Implements Martial Law

2011-02-17T23:09:00.000-08:00

Given the current situation in the Middle East, I'll come back to At War With Asia later. There are two prominent types of governments in the Middle East: monarchies and republics. The monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc) tend to be richer oil producing states. The republics (Egypt and Tunisia, formerly secular republics, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc) tend to be poorer states, usually with larger populations, and not oil producing states. The only theocracy in the Middle East is Iran, though Saudi Arabia is close. To give an idea of fiscal differentiation, a week or so ago Kuwait paid each of its citizens $3,000… a roundabout stimulus package type way of saying "please don't follow suit and protest the monarchy, we don't want our country to go to hell in a handbasket like every other country in the region." Could Egypt afford to do this? Could Tunisia afford to do this? Could Yemen afford to do this?

Here in the last day or so Bahrain went on military lockdown, its leaders banned public gatherings and sent tanks to the streets killing some anti-government protestors. Thousands across the region defied authorities and marched to the streets in Libya and Yemen, in the same fashion of political unrest that we saw succeed in toppling regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.

Some of this revolt in the Arab world is, for the most part, inconsequential to the U.S., however, Egypt and Bahrain are hardly inconsequential. The United States' Fifth Fleet naval force for the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea, is located in Bahrain… a vital component of the U.S. Navy. In fact, because of this, Bahrain is a key part of U.S. counterbalance to Iran.

The unrest is jeopardizing the future of a vital U.S. ally. The base isn't the most important U.S. base in the Middle East, but it does oversee all the naval operations. Due to a Sunni conflict (as I understand it), Bahrain is susceptible to become subdue to Iranian influence, which could be disastrous to both the U.S. and the world's oil markets (Bahrain is an oil state). Initial U.S. reactions to the deaths of the anti-government protestors, as caused by Bahrain's implementation of marshall law, have been relatively quiet. But recently the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, expressed deep concern over the event. A U.S. State Department spokesman said "this is something that the Bahrain government needs to address in greater fashion" and "the U.S. is expressing full support for the rights of these people to express themselves."

This wake of unrest in the Middle East was immediately predictable after the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and especially when protests started in Egypt. These next few months in Egypt, and in the region as a whole, are going to be most interesting. This might be the most substantial amount of revolution the region has seen since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

At War With Asia, Part I: Indochina and the American Crisis

2011-02-14T22:09:00.000-08:00

Chomsky analysis month continues. At War With Asia, Chomsky's second political book, delves further into U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia. British economist Joan Robinson described the American crusade against communism in the following terms, as quoted in the book by Chomsky:

"It is obvious enough that the United States' crusade against Communism is a campaign against development. By means of it the American people have been led to acquiesce in the maintenance of a huge war machine and its use by threat or actual force to try to suppress every popular movement that aims to overthrow ancient or modern tyranny and begin to find a way to overcome poverty and establish national self-respect. In those countries whose governments have been prepared to accept American support, ‘aid’ is given in a form which may do more to inhibit development than to promote it.”

Chomsky also quotes John K. Fairbank:

"Our fear of Communism, partly as an expression of our general fear of the future, will continue to inspire us to aggressive anti-Communist policies in Asia and elsewhere, [and] the American people will be led to think and may honestly believe that the support of anti-Communist governments in Asia will somehow defend the American way of life. This line of American policy will lead to American aid to establish regimes which attempt to suppress the popular movements in Indonesia, Indochina, the Philippines, and China…. Thus, after setting out to fight Communism in Asia, the American people will be obliged in the end to fight the peoples of Asia.

This American aggression abroad will be associated with an increasing trend toward anti-Communist authoritarianism within the United States, which its victims will call fascism and which may eventually make it impossible to have discussions like this one today. This American fascism will come, if it comes, because American liberals have joined the American public in a fear of Communism from abroad rather than fascism at home as the chief totalitarian menace."

Both these quotes depict perfectly the opposition liberals took to American action against communism. Joan Robinson is a famous Marxian economist. She wrote one essay in 1942 concentrated solely on Marxism, trying to revive this aspect of his legacy. Regarding her stated passage above, yes, we can say that American opposition to the Communists is an inadvertent effort to oppose the communists who think their ideology will "develop" their nations (in North Korea and North Vietnam, for instance). And yes, we can say that many non-communist U.S. backed governments, that we supported because of their opposition to communism, were tyrannies. At the time communism was considered, by some at least, a system that promoted development (by select factions of the left, mostly). However, after the Fall of Saigon and during the post-Vietnam years, when South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos fell to communism, as well as communist states outside Southeast Asia, hindsight tells us communist systems hardly succeed in "developing their respective nations."

As for the U.S. inhibiting development, I think there's something to this. It was certainly the case in South Vietnam. Had there been no reunification of North and South Vietnam, development in South Vietnam would have been inhibited sheerly because of American/Saigon Government/Viet Cong destruction, most of which was American. We saw similar instances of violent U.S. opposition to communism in Central America in the 1980's, leaving Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala in a close to devastated state.

Also, history has proved, very well, America hasn't become a fascist state. And fascism was never the "chief totalitarian menace." History reserved that honor for Stalinism.

There was an argument as well, at the time, that there was no differentiation between American imperialism and Stalinism, and that America behaved no differently than the Stalinists, well… I think that's a bit of a stretch (to be modest). More people were killed in Vietnam and Cambodia post-1975, after the war ended, than during. America isn't accountable for that. The pattern that's intrinsic to Stalinism is: 1) the Stalinists come into power, and 2) they purge their nation of all actual and potential opposition. We haven't an ounce of that pattern in America. There was no anti-war movement in Russia under Stalin.

Chomsky states in his book:

“I mean to suggest that the Cold war is highly functional for the American elite as well as for its Soviet counterpart, who, in a similar way, sends its armies into Czechoslovakia to ward off Western Imperialism. It serves to proved an ideology for empire and to mobilize support for the government subsidized system of military state capitalism. It is predictable, then, that opportunities to end the Cold War will be side-stepped, and that challenges to Cold war ideology will be bitterly resisted.”

Chomsky has preconceived ideas about America's liberal democratization, and makes a bold cynical prediction in writing this. This is basically a statement saying the Cold War will continue indefinitely because it supports both liberal democracy and soviet communism. The prediction was proved false in 1989 with the failure of the Soviets, 19 years after At War With Asia. However, Chomsky's rationale backing that theory isn't too far gone. He believed American capitalist self-interest would drive the need for the continuation of the Soviet Union, that the United States, economically, actually benefitted from the USSR. I'm no economist, but that theory makes sense. When Reagan addressed Gorbachev, I guess a few other factors were weighing in.

Back to the complicated situation in Indochina in 1970. There was a time when America justified bombing Laos because it was claimed that North Vietnam had 50,000 troops in northern Laos. Chomsky tells an interesting story regarding one of his visits to Laos in March of 1970. Wanting documented proof of the claimed 50,000 troops, he visited the American Embassy and asked to speak to the CIA Representative/political officer, whom he asked if he could see some background material on the alleged troops. The CIA Rep gave him piles of documentation, which he read through to find evidence that there was one North Vietnamese battalion of maybe 2,500 soldiers somewhere up in northern Laos. The rest was a fabrication.

Chomsky also touches again on the anti-war movement (which I went over in the previous article), criticizing it because most of the condemnation that fueled the opposition and the protests was centered around America's bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia. There was practically no condemnation over the bombing of the South, which by 1965 was even more extensive than the bombing of the North, at least according to Bernard Fall (a correspondent and intellectual of the war, in fact, he's cited by Robert McNamera, the Secretary of Defense under JFK and Johnson, to be the one non-government person cited as a military historian of Vietnam). According to Fall the bombing of the South was at triple the scale of the bombing of the North. In fact, I'm not sure how many people even know about the bombing of the South. In 1962 Kennedy launched outright aggression against South Vietnam, authorizing bombings and napalm and such. But there were no protests over this. The protests didn't start until the bombing of the North.

TRB, the editor of The New Republic magazine, states:

"The moral pull for the U.S. to go on rescue missions will always be enormous. There are dozens of such spots. Our conscious aches for them. But our capacity? It is probably limited…"

The lesson he draws from Vietnam is that the U.S.'s capacity to aid foreign countries from tyranny is limited. This is a rescue mission we should not have undertaken. He surely represents a fair segment of American opinion, but ultimately saw our intervention in Vietnam as a tragedy. He also says "what is our primary duty? Is it to the South Vietnamese who might be massacred if we quit? Or to the 150-200 American boys who lose their lives weekly if we don't withdraw?" What of those massacred by American military actions?

I'm unaware of any historian of Indochina during the 1960's more informed than Bernard Fall. I wish I had the will to get through Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu, but man, what a doozy.

American Power and the New Mandarins

2011-02-09T20:17:00.000-08:00

This marked the beginning of Chomsky's embarking from linguistics to politics. Written in 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War, Chomsky, in a collection of adamant essays, depicts at the very least the evil impulses of American foreign policy and at the most America as a whole. While this book is very political, the application of Chomsky's left skewed ideals to his political ideals (when he says things like U.S. policy was to destroy the nationalist movement in South Vietnamese peasantry rather than to defend them from the communists) aren't nearly as intriguing as the morality that accompanies these ideals. And in this book we get, among other things, a great deal of morality. This was one of the most interesting aspects of the 1960's. There was a massive movement in opposition to the war because of this feeling of "guilt," which Chomsky touches on in his book. In fact, this was the first real anti-war movement in America. We had that marginal core peace movement that had existed prior to Vietnam, largely based in religious beliefs (unitarianism), that opposed Kennedy's failure to halt nuclear proliferation, but it failed to gain massive popularity until the Cold War era. Any other peace unions that existed in the 1950's were more liberal than radical. By the mid 1960's, the opposition was rampant. Even Martin Luther King expressed support for the anti-war movement.

The way I see it, there were two types of opposition to Vietnam:

One, and this one pertains to the intellectual class, there was opposition because the war was not winnable, it was expensive, politically it was a bind, and it was costing too many American lives. The implication of this is, had the U.S. crushed the Vietnamese resistance without significant loss of American life, in which case the war might've been more popular and thus not as tactically difficult politically, these intellectuals would have supported the war (with Vietnamese life being irrelevant).

Two, and this is the one I already touched on, there was a massive youth movement in opposition to the war because of this feeling of guilt. American atrocities committed during this war, to my knowledge, are unparalleled. At the time (late 1960's), there were two possible outcomes for Vietnam. One: Withdrawal. Two: The destruction of Vietnam as a social and cultural entity. This is just one reason for the 1960's counter-culture movement. People were starting to ask "where exactly does America stand in the world?" And it was this feeling of guilt, of emotional and moral falseness, largely, that drove this opposition.

Chomsky addresses the issue of morality very closely in his book, saying towards the "moral American class" that there's no ground for elitism and moral superiority because anyone who expressed opposition to the war did so long after opposition should've been initialized. He even says "I hate that I didn't come to this position earlier" and "no one who involved him/herself in anti-war activities as late as 1965, as I did, has any reason for pride or satisfaction." Even those who expressed opposition to the policy in the mid 50's didn't engage in anti-war protests until the mid 60's, by which time Vietnam had been underway for 10 years.

Also suggesting a moral implication, there's a point in the book where he says something like "aside from any point of politics" … then goes on to argue the issue.

Another interesting aspect to Chomsky's argument, is, unlike many radical critics, he does not build his case against U.S. foreign policy by magnifying the innocence or goodness of those who oppose us internationally. Rather, he argues brilliantly against perhaps the most common misperception of international American intervention: that our interventionist policies are merely a defense reaction to Russian or Chinese aggression, that we intervene only to defend the people of Asia (or Africa, or Latin-America) from the evils of communist totalitarianism.

There's one section juxtaposing Vietnam events with the Spanish Civil War and Japanese imperial politics during the 1930's (policies such as the "naked expression" clause). He argues that Naked Expression is plausible only by disregarding precisely the claims of national self-interest and the right to protect a puppet government (Manchurian) from Chinese domination. This is a textbook perfect analogy to the American justification of Vietnam. However, Chomsky does not claim that his view of either pre-World War II Japanese policy or of the Spanish Civil War is the only possible one, which differs from Vietnam because, according to Chomsky, by the mid to late 1960's Vietnam was about as arguable as Auschwitz.

However, beyond justification of American intentions in Vietnam the analogy isn't quite as strong. Chomsky's essay on Japanese imperialism of the 1930's is overt in its effort to describe the U.S.'s foreign policy goals with the same terminology used to describe Japan's foreign policy goals. This analogical approach may be intended to demonstrate the universal evil of imperialism, whether practiced by the Japanese in the 1930's or the American's in the 1960's, but Chomsky's prose style is rarely felicitous. And that's significant because it's something one would expect in a trenchant, straight forward, well-organized, direct political essay. But Chomsky's material is extremely chaotic and unorganized, thus leaving the reader somehow with the bizarre notion that Chomsky's defending Japanese imperialism of the 1930's, a position that even the most severe critic of American Far Eastern policy prior to the second World War would be reluctant to take.

The essay on Spain is both more ambitious and more significant. He demonstrates most convincingly that the anarchist revolution was misrepresented towards the Spanish struggle. Here he makes the analogy that Spain's crushing of the anarchists was far more important than defeating Franco's rebels, analogous to the West's crushing of the communists. Or so i make of it.

The other rhetoric used, besides the focus on morality, was aimed at emotion. He describes the war as "barbarous," "obscene," "butchery," and "a depraved act by weak and miserable men" … the sort of terms that appeal to the emotions rather than the intelligence. He claims the war is no more debatable than the Italian war in Abyssinia or the Russian suppression of Hungarian freedom. These aforementioned emotional arguments, I think, only succeed in further convincing those who are already convinced. Those simply looking for guidance, or those new to studying the issue, will probably just be deeply outraged. I quickly get fed up with overly emotive-type argumentation. Chomsky goes way overboard in my opinion, saying things like "what America needs is a kind of denazification." Surely there are better things to say, especially coming from a competent scholar and linguist.

Anarcho-Syndicalism and the Intellectuals

2011-02-06T01:48:00.000-08:00

"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for creative work, for creative inquiry, for free creation without the arbitrary limiting effect of coercive institutions, then, of course, it will follow that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realized. That means trying to overcome the elements of repression and oppression and destruction and coercion that exist in any existing society, ours for example, as a historical residue.

Now any form of coercion or repression, any form of autocratic control of some domain of existence, let's say, private ownership of capital or state control of some aspects of human life, any such autocratic restriction on some area of human endeavor, can be justified, if at all, only in terms of the need for subsistence, or the need for survival, or the need for defense against some horrible fate or something of that sort. It cannot be justified intrinsically. Rather it must be overcome and eliminated.

And I think that, at least in the technologically advanced societies of the West we are now certainly in a position where meaningless drudgery can very largely be eliminated, and to the marginal extent that it's necessary, can be shared among the population; where centralized autocratic control of, in the first place, economic institutions, by which I mean either private capitalism or state totalitarianism or the various mixed forms of state capitalism that exist here and there, has become a destructive vestige of history.

They are all vestiges that have to be overthrown, eliminated in favor of direct participation in the form of workers' councils or other free associations that individuals will constitute themselves for the purpose of their social existence and their productive labour.

Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society, in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it by a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature, will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will."

--Noam Chomsky
For the full debate between Chomsky and Foucault, see:
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
(and it's a great debate)

This debate, if it's fair to call it a debate, regarding human nature, boils down to whether or not meaning, epistemology, and creativity, among other things, are intrinsic to it. Chomsky believes that they are; that is, he believes humanity has a need to inquire on such things. Foucault does not deny the possibility that they are, but he does deny Chomsky's ability to define human nature, in any sense, because Chomsky's definition will invariably be ethnocentric (as will anyone's). Foucault uses culture to explain culture, as it exists here and there or now and then; Chomsky uses culture to explain reality. (I know… Nietzsche wouldn't approve)

Now, in theory, anarcho-syndicalism is indistinguishable from libertarian socialism. Chomsky has a long history history of regarding states as power centers, and has expressed that "no state meets even the minimal level of morality," thus the reason for his anarchist tendencies. But the more interesting part of Chomsky's argument is not necessarily his favoring a stateless society, but how he intends to get there. Chomsky has argued that it would be a mistake to attempt to eliminate the state in the short run, and that the first step towards achieving this would be to strengthen the state, because it's needed as a check on the power of large corporations. Now, the question that should be asked, or rather, the point that should be made, is why exactly is this the case given that the power of large corporations is mostly state driven. The beneficiary of a more powerful state is going to be the same corporate elite Chomsky's trying to oppose.

Chomsky is very Marxist inspired as well. He argues that the best transition would be derived from a war waged against the ruling class by the proletariat (or so that's what I make of what he says), and that this is necessary to lead to a more just society, in which the state will dissolve and in which the proletariat will be a universal class. He argues that the need for a violent revolution, and those who argue the need for a violent and bloody revolution, argue so falsely, and that there's no sense in a violent revolution, especially should there be no future justification (which would be liberation). He says that if the attainment of power by the proletariat leads to human relations being destroyed, he wouldn't want the proletariat to take power, and that the only reason for wanting such a thing is because one thinks some fundamental human values will be achieved, or realized, by that transfer of power. Then Foucault makes the point, in this case the point that I'd make and have made in the past, that there's a probable chance when the proletariat takes power it will exert violence towards the once ruling class, and in effect become what it opposed. One would definitely think that should there exist a stateless society, someone will capitalize on the opportunity to dictate that society. Historical experience tells us that a violent and bloody dictatorship of the proletariat, when controlled by self-appointed representatives of a vanguard party, has at its end this society simply being ruled by the vanguards.

Chomsky is familiar with Bakunin I'm sure, but I haven't heard him address Bakunin's criticism of Marx. How can the working class ever take over an institution as massive as the state without violence?

To digress a bit, I think Chomsky is great on foreign policy, propaganda and the media networks, the U.S. power structure, etc… but there's definitely an economic side to achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat, and economics is not Chomsky's strong suit. Also, Chomsky is a state-employed anarchist. He works for MIT, which receives most all its funding from the state. This makes me question his status of an anarchist… aren't these folks supposed to have mohawks and "walk the earth," living in emancipation from a power structure?

In regards to anarcho-syndicalism/libertarian socialism, representing his side I tend to gravitate towards, he goes on to say…

"I think it would be a great shame to put aside entirely the somewhat more abstract and philosophical task of trying to draw the connections between a concept of human nature that gives full scope to freedom and dignity and creativity and other fundamental human characteristics, and to relate that to some notion of social structure in which those properties could be realized and in which meaningful human life could take place. If we are thinking of social transformation or social revolution, though it would be absurd, of course, to try to sketch out in detail the goal that we are hoping to reach, still we should know something about where we think we are going, and such a theory may tell it to us."

There are a few intellectual tasks: One, we must envision a just society in which there exists the basic minimal moral standards of a humane egalitarian existence. Two, we must realize that this society will most likely never exist, save that there's a drastic metamorphosis of humanity (in which case we already have this ideal society envisioned). Three, and this is probably the most important, we must recognize the negative forces at work in the world, which includes looking in the mirror at our own society... the power and oppression and terrorism and destruction... and through what seems to be the most reasonable approach, via opposition and reducing the equanimity, we must fight these forces.

(I feel like now's the time where I'm supposed to rear up on my horse with my sword in the air and lead my troops into battle)

To conclude with one last quote...

"If we have the choice between trusting in centralised power to make the right decision in that matter, or trusting in free associations of libertarian communities to make that decision, I would rather trust the latter. And the reason is that I think that they can serve to maximise decent human instincts, whereas a system of centralised power will tend in a general way to maximise one of the worst of human instincts, namely the instinct of rapaciousness, of destructiveness, of accumulating power to oneself and destroying others. It's a kind of instinct which does arise and functions in certain historical circumstances, and I think we want to create the kind of society where it is likely to be repressed and replaced by other and more healthy instincts."

Human, All Too Human

2011-02-03T16:37:00.000-08:00

Nietzsche wrote:

"Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment."

Goldfinger's Launching of the Bond Series

2011-01-31T13:49:00.000-08:00

Goldfinger could easily be described as the Bond film that launched the series into full swing, and most would say it's the quintessential Bond film that set the precedent for Bond films from that point on. Most people will agree that the "Bond formula" all started here. Dr. No and From Russia With Love were hits, but Goldfinger was a smash hit.

I think it's important to note, and I comment on this because I've read a lot of misconceptions in movie reviews and such regarding the film, this was not the first Bond film to feature Desmond Llewelyn as Q. He appeared in From Russia With Love; this was the first film, however, to establish him as a recurring character… a character that would later become an essential Bond character and an iconic legend. Nor is this the first film to feature "Bond, James Bond" as a catchphrase, as we saw this, for certain, in Dr. No. However, it is the first film where we hear that other iconic line for the first time, "shaken, not stirred." He said a similar variation in Dr. No, but not "shaken, not stirred" exactly. Muahahahahahahahahah.

I also think this is the first film where we see Bond's character emerge as suave and sophisticated, which is less in-tune with Flemming's writing, but more in-tune with the precedent that captures the series (until the "bronze" Daniel Craig era). Flemming's writing was better represented by Goldfinger's predec-essors, which were much darker, more serious motion pictures (without the tongue-in-cheek humor).

Like its predecessors, this film was extremely risque for 1964. We see, like in the other prior films, sexual scenes, constant innuendo and references, implications of lesbianism (which we also saw in From Russia With Love), brief nudity in the credits, etc… Not to mention Honor Blackman's character "Pussy Galore."

Speaking of Pussy Galore, this is the first real film where we get Bond "hooking up with every attractive woman within a 45 mile radius," which becomes yet another staple to the series.

I also think this is the first Bond film to have a real hatchet man. Oddjob establishes this precedent with perfection. And he's probably the greatest hatchet man in the Bond series next to Jaws (who's in The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker). We see that classic structure that sets up a pre-climactic confrontation between Bond and the hatchet man, which is usually a more physical confrontation, before Bond takes down the main mastermind villain (in this case Goldfinger). This is also the first Bond film that makes real use of, and puts emphasis on, the high-tech gadgetry provided by Q. Q actually gets some screen time in this one, and we get our first peep into his laboratory. We saw that briefcase in From Russia With Love, which Bond used to get the best of Robert Shaw's character, but in Goldfinger we see a homing/tracking device, the snorkel suit, and best of all, the Aston Martin with an ejector seat, bulletproof windows, missiles (I think), smoke, etc… the first real Bond mobile.

There's also the fantastic, and somewhat unbelievable, plot line. This is used off and on throughout the series, mostly for a lot of later Bond films (especially during the Brosnan era). I like the over-the-top far-fetched plots, personally; I think they make for a more enjoyable film. These "realistic" plot lines we're getting with the Daniel Craig films are boring boring boring. Nobody wants a Bond plot to be centered around an evil villain's mastermind plan to make 60% of Bolivia's water cost more (should he get his way). Only James Bond - the secret agent who foiled a plot to destroy London with nuclear missiles - can make water more affordable for Bolivians (Maddox reference). Yeah… I don't watch Bond movies for "realism." Give me a plot about a gold dealer trying to detonate a nuclear device in the U.S. gold supply vaults at Fort Knox so the gold will be radioactive for 58 years, thus making his own gold collection skyrocket in value.

Yes, this film is the "gold" standard for Bond films.

MRI of a Dying Man

2011-01-30T13:32:00.000-08:00

This is an MRI of somebody dying. The brain releases thousands of endorphins when you die, what some people refer to as “the light."

An Introspective Sound: Alcest

2011-01-27T00:20:00.000-08:00

Ecailles de Lune (Part I)

We have our classic black metal bands. These are the Celtic Frost's and Hellhammer's and Bathory's of the world. Then we have our next wave of black metal, which has a slightly wider variance in sound. These would be our Immortal's and Satyricon's and Emperor's (and the newest, Triptykon, which was one of the most pleasant surprises of 2010), so on and so on.

Then there's… Alcest.

Let me start by saying the production value is ace. And this is what we would expect from Markus Stock (the brain behind Empyrium, The Vision Bleak, and Autumnblaze).

With Écailles de Lune, this band has taken black metal in its own direction, and the results have been nothing short of fantastic. It would probably be unfair to call them a black metal band, just because black metal is only one of many incorporations they throw into their sound. It's extremely shoegazish. You'll find few blastbeats, and absolutely no pounding "D" chords played over and over (retreat!, Whitechapel fans, retreat!). Rather, most of the album is gentle and mellow, and creates an ethereal sense of beauty in an extremely emotional way. This is where the post-rock influence finds its way in. Black metal is a genre that, to a large extent, seems to quickly be becoming stale… still producing great music, just not much in the way of innovation. Clean vocals of this sort are unchartered grounds for this genre. The vocals on the opening track engulf the song with a wave of sentimentality and serenity. And they compliment the guitars beautifully, creating truly stirring music with a painstakingly transparent emotional core.

There are few metal records that evoke so much emotion in the listener (or at least that's the case with me), hence why I usually turn to post-rock for feeling, whether it be depression, inspiration, tranquility, or whatever else. But this record absolutely does. This music brings me to a state of introversion. I've never heard music so beautiful and dreamlike, yet so longing with lingering undertones of lonesomeness and pain. The lingering follows the album throughout, appearing and reappearing, right to the very end with Sur L'Ocean Couleur de Fer, which is one of the most dreamlike songs I've ever heard. This is the song I would expect to hear when voyaging to a different realm.

I can almost see the valor behind the clouds…

The slow gentle echoing guitars and the harmonious vocal pattern draw a beautiful romantic ambiance; it's the perfect album closer. But it still has that strange sense of depression and anguish, like it's trying to seek out the beauty, but just can't get past the heartache… a theme I thought lasted throughout.

The blackest part of the album was Écailles de Lune (Part II) and Percées de Lumiére, where we heard a lot of that 90's shoegaze meet Agalloch-type intensity and black metal vocals. Percées de Lumiére, especially, ads a lot of diversity to this record. Neige displays his fantastic shrill screams, which are extremely impressive because I've never actually been convinced he's a black metal vocalist, so I'm not quite sure how he pulls it off. The drums aren't too technical, but they're interesting, and they mesh well with the bass. There are some great uptempo rifts. This song invoked a nice feeling of nostalgia, in a way that's not quite so "down" in mood, but still incredibly heartfelt.

Abysses is definitely the weakest track on the record, but it serves as a nice interlude between the first three tracks and Solar Song and Sur L'Ocean de Fer.

Sur L'Ocean Couleur de Fer

There have been a lot of comparisons made between Alcest and Agalloch, maybe because they're both on Profound Lore, or maybe because most see them as similar artists, but whatever the reason(s), these are two of the greatest current artists producing music. Écailles de Lune got #2 on my top albums of 2010 list behind Agalloch's. Both are blackened post-metal. Both can be folksy. Alcest delves more into the shoegaze area than Agalloch. Agalloch delves more into doom. But they are similar, and I think comparing them is justifiable. While I feel Agalloch creates better song structure, greater depth, and slightly more instrumental efficiency, Alcest creates in an area where Agalloch lacks (slightly): atmosphere and emotion. I definitely get emotional responses from Agalloch's music, but not quite in the sense, or to the extent, I do from Alcest's. And I think that rolls back around to atmospherics.

Écailles de Lune: 9.4/10

A special thanks to the Metal Archives and the Mayhem Boards.

The Human Centipede: Upon Further Review

2011-01-24T13:52:00.000-08:00

After engaging in online debate over this film, and after writing about it a few months ago, I thought I'd address it more fluently. If you haven't seen it, I'm not going to explain the plot...

While generic in nature and structure, I do think the real question, "whether or not it's a good movie," is at least arguable, in a sense that it isn't seen as arguable to a lot of people. At the very least, it should provoke much more thought than it conventionally has, and regardless of whether or not it's a "good movie," it's a damn interesting movie. There seem to be some weighty concepts at play, buried behind a shock premise. For one, this film is obviously centered around the works of Bataille. I picked up on a lot of socialistic and animalistic concepts. For example, the head of the Centipede, the Japanese character, couldn't stand the thought of being animalized, thus the ultimate reason for his committing suicide. This obviously relates back to Bataille and the philosophical stance upon which the movie was based, or at the very least inspired. That is, humans are ultimately animalistic in nature, yet we attempt at all costs to deny it. Bataille believed we spend our whole lives in aguish because if it. The Japanese character has no desire to exist as an animal, and even expresses his opposition to the idea, yet he regresses to an animalistic state when he attempts to bite out the doctor's throat near the end of the film. When he realizes he's become what he never wanted to be, he slits his own throat rather than continue to endure the existence lying before him. The self loathing the Japanese character feels towards himself is greater than any animosity he feels towards his captor. And his self loathing isn't just because of what he's become; it's because of the misery and depravity and self-centerdeness he's known throughout the course of his life. Ultimately, I think he views the centipede as his punishment, which would explain why he called the doctor "god."

This brings me to the point of "why did the Japanese character kill himself? Why didn't he continue to attack the doctor with the scalpel?" Other than relating back to the retribution concept, I think the Japanese character thought, in a sense perhaps, it would be more painful for the doctor to watch his creation kill itself than killing the doctor directly. We mustn't forget that though sick, the doctor risks everything to conduct this experiment. The reasons are never fully divulged, and this concept is never really explored, but through implication it seems clear to the audience that the doctor feels the need to transcend his own anguish, and in the process seek spirituality and become closer to the divine. Whether the doctor understands this on a conscious level, or simply feels it, isn't particularly important. What is important is the idea that he would jeopardize his life, livelihood, freedom, and career reputation as the leading surgeon of his field to achieve this creation. Once again, this refers back to Bataille, and recalls the esoteric society which he helped found during the surrealist movement: the Acephale. The society's symbol was a headless man who represented the group's opposition to a "closed and stifling social existence," which could be viewed as transcendentalism:

The point is, the doctor sacrificed ultimately his life to create the centipede. Perhaps the Japanese character, through killing himself in front of the doctor, viewed this action as the ultimate way of crushing everything the doctor had risked so much for.

It's also worth noting that the doctor begins his experiments with animals, then moves to humans, acting as a mirror between Bataille's ideas about man and man's animal nature.

There's also a theme of individuality, selfhood, and social interdependence. We see this in the fate that befalls the middle piece of the centipede... complete surrendering of individuality and selfhood embodies the fate of the middle piece. The head and the tail are dead, and she is forced to acknowledge she is no longer an individual at all. She's part of an organism - a dead organism - and her fate seems painful and clear. We also see this theme in the inability for any communication to take place between the head of the centipede and the doctor due to the language gap.

doctor: German Japanese Character: Japanese Lindsay and Jenny: American

Despite its uniqueness, the film is full of cliches. It has the mad doctor who preforms horrific experiments in his secret underground lab. Two unintelligent American girls' car breaks down on a deserted street winding through the middle of the woods late at night. They don't have a signal on their cell phone, so they do what any logical person would do: begin wondering aimlessly through the woods until they come to a house. Of course they enter the house, despite its owner being creepy enough to warrant any sane person's immediate departure (or more accurately, "running like hell to get the fuck out of there"). They accept drinks, which are drugged. Yes... cliche. But these contrivances are mostly found in the opening sequence of the film, which is deceptive because the rest is far more compelling.

As soon as they enter the doctor's house, the doctor takes advantage of the language barrier to humiliate and objectify them (without them knowing it). This immediately foreshadows the dehumanization that's later to come.

I think the cliche of the two American girls "randomly and spontaneously" showing up on the doctor's front porch, after being previously alluded to the doctor's plan to create the centipede (when we saw him looking at the photo of the dogs), played into the concept of the doctor being "brought" to do this, perhaps as part of his quest to seek the divine. It's analogous, much in the same way, to John Doe being "called," in his mind by god, to carry out his series of seven in Se7en. These girls just showed up. Perhaps this was a sign to the doctor that his experiment was supposed to go forth.

A New Tone

2011-01-23T22:52:00.004-08:00

According to Robert Anton Wilson, consciousness is information received and decoded by a structure. In prescientific human beings, the structure is the nervous system as defined and limited by its imprints. Intelligence is information received, decoded, and transmitted by a structure. Operationally, we cannot say an entity is "intelligent" until it transmits information received. Imprints are electrochemically bonded neural circuits defining and limiting the capacity to receive, decode, and transmit information. There are at least eight imprint circuits in the human, of which only four are normally used. Reality is the gestalt which a given nervous system integrates out of information received. Each "reality" is relative, being defined and limited by the imprint circuits of the receiving nervous system.

We are educationally conditioned to perceive our reality.

In the image above, I see the colors "blue," "pink," "tan," "brown," and "gold;"

this probably wouldn't be the case for a tribe in India.

Brainwashing is the forcible reimprinting of a nervous system to eliminate old "realities" and imprint a new "reality."

Stupidity is a contagious sociosemantic disturbance which afflicts us all. Stupidity murders genuises, burns books, slaughters populations, and blocks progress. There is nothing rationally desirable that cannot be achieved if rationality itself increases. Neurochemistry means the human nervous system studying and improving itself: intelligence, studying, and improving intelligence. Rationality, like reality, is perceived. What's rational to one person isn't rational to another. But that doesn't make it less rational to seek rationality, in accordance to the individual's perception of what is rational.

23 Months Later

2011-01-23T02:17:00.000-08:00

People are always saying that change is a good thing. But all they're really saying is that something you didn't want to happen at all... has happened.

It's hard to believe I'm the author of these below posts. But at the same time, I vividly remember writing these things, and I vividly remember this stage of my life... probably because it hasn't been all that long ago.

I might get back in the habit of posting should I find the time and desire. All I really feel like doing right now is laying in bed with my eyes closed, and maybe listening to some Alcest.

Neil Williams...

2009-02-24T16:53:00.000-08:00

This douche started the anti-dodgeball movement. He claims that dodgeball teaches our children that other children are human targets. Thanks to him, dodgeball has been outlawed in school districts around the country, including some in New York, Texas, Virginia, Utah, etc... He stated:“it encourages the best to pick on the weak.” Neil Williams is anti-competition in general. You know, it's really no wonder why other countries hate America. We're the biggest bunch of pansy-ass, cock-sucking pussies on earth. I suppose we should ban snowball fights as well, because that's also turning our children into human targets. There will always be the strong and the weak, so in order not to hurt anyone's feelings, I guess we should prohibit all sports... you know... so nobody gets their feelings hurt. School is also competitive. That cock that sits beside you in English might make better grades than you... and it might hurt your feelings. I suppose we should ban academics as well. Why don't we all just let our children stay at home and suck on their mothers breasts? Letting them out in the real world might permanently scar them. After all, we would never want to teach our children how to deal with all the bad things the world has to offer, we want to shield them from it so they are never exposed to it in the first place.

Due to the latest American “Pussyfication” act of 2008-09', look for Neil Williams and his band of thugs to ban/correct the following classic games:

1. Baseball. It involves stealing and hit-and-runs, which we most definitely wouldn’t want to associate our perfect children with. Besides, players should always be safe, never out.

2. Marco Polo. This game mocks the blind. It may be offensive to children who cannot see. It should be banned.

3. Capture The Flag. This game overly-simulates war. It must be banned.

4. Sardines. This game unfairly leaves one child alone at the end as a looser – a term Williams and fellow pussy psychologists have deemed unacceptable.

5. Tag. Referring to children as“it”is demeaning, hurtful, and could even imply that they aren't humans. It must be banned.

6. Red Rover. Inappropriate labeling of children as animals. Besides, the word red evokes communist undertones.

7. Kick the can. Unfair to the can.

Does Anyone Else Hate Punk?

2009-01-19T21:54:00.000-08:00

We all know the punk trend has some main objectives:

1. Question Authority
2. Rebel against Ignorance
3. Rebel against corporations and commercialism
4. Emphasize free thought.
5. “Shock” the audience.

Punk idealism sounds wonderful, but falls remarkably short of taking into account its own hypocrisies and the genetic mindset of basic human nature. Take for instance, punks emphasize the “shock value” (by growing mohawks, wearing leather vests, and wearing combat boots). At the same time they try to broaden their audience and influence them to abandon capitalism. The only part is, I think we can all agree that the “shock value” is no way to speak to the masses. “Shocking” people into believing in you just doesn’t work. So nice try… but no. Get on the cover of Oprah and you might be onto something.

The only reason to dress like a punk is to express individuality, right? So is it that expression of individuality that makes you a punk? Aren’t punks non conformists? Yet you conform to that fashion, to that expression of individuality, so what makes you any more non-conformist than anyone else?

With that thought, punk must mean:
“Be a non-conformist, but conform to us.”

So if punk advocates individualism, does that mean that any dumbass bimbo off the street who deviates from mainstream pop-culture fashion would be a punk? Of course any self-styled punk would say “no,” so does that mean that you can only be a punk if you dress like a punk and listen to punk music? I guess that means any dude who shaves his head into a Mohawk and starts listening to punk must be a punk, right? Then the self-styled punk would say “no," he’s only doing it because it’s trendy and “in.”” That’s the problem with punk. That’s the problem with the root of its hypocritical nature... the fact that it is no longer a statement at all... it is only a deviation from the mainstream, which in turn makes it its own separate mainstream.

All factions are the same. There are underlying sets of rules that comes with being part of the faction. If a punk were to tell a pseudo-punk “you’re not punk,” it would imply that there were a certain set of rules and orders that had to be met in order to be identified as a member of the group... which is a crock of shit. Punk died the moment it gave itself a set of rules, because its own rules are hypocritical to its own establishment.

Happy Crappy 2009

2009-01-09T20:45:00.000-08:00

I have had no time in the past month to do anything. My computer had a virus and I ended up having to restore it. Computers are a bitch.

I just wanted to say I hope you all had a crappy new year, and hopefully 2009 won't suck shit like 2008. Hell what am I saying? Of course it will suck shit like 2008. The porn industry is begging congress for a bailout. You know something's screwed up.

Happy crappy 2009 cocksuckers.

Quotes, Part 2

2008-12-13T13:26:00.000-08:00

"We made too many wrong mistakes. "
-- Yogi Berra

Oh really? As opposed to making to many "right" mistakes? Thanks for the clarification, dumbass.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, "Look, here's what happened."
--Joe Biden

I suppose Biden was unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929, and that TV's weren't commercially available until the late 1930's.

"If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either."
-- Dick Cavett

I think this one is fairly self explanatory.

"Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours"
-- Yogi Berra

Once again Yogi, thank you for sharing your infinite wisdom with us.

"I need more sex, OK? Before I die I wanna taste everyone in the world."
-– Angelina Jolie
...and...
"I never like being touched, ever. People used to say I held my breath when they were hugging me. I still do."
-– Angelina Jolie

Whore. And a hypocritical whore at that, which is the worst kind of whore. Go choke.

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, We’d be against it."

-– Ingrid Newkirk, the president of “PETA”

I would love to know if Ingrid has ever taken aspirin or pain relievers. If she was in a car accident, I wonder if she would refuse procaine or other anesthetics that may have been tested on animals. If she went to the dentist and had to have some teeth pulled, would she refuse codeine or hydrocodone or oxydone? Would she refuse to take a subscription of prednisone and live in pain for three years? If someone cut off her leg, would she refuse morphine?

When asked if the phrase "under god" is offensive, Sarah Palin responds:
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."
-– Sarah Palin

The words "under god" weren't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. The Pledge of Allegiance itself wasn't even written until 1892, long after the founding fathers had deceased.

Quotes, Part 1

2008-12-08T00:00:00.000-08:00

Below are some quotes I’ve found, and my response to them.

“Wherever you go, no matter what the weather, always bring your own sunshine.”
--Anthony J. D'Angelo

No.

“Happiness is an attitude. We either make ourselves miserable, or happy and strong. The amount of work is the same.”
--Francesca Reigler

So, according to you, “happiness” is directly associated with
“strong,” and “miserable” is not. So I’m a weak person because I’m not happy? Screw you.

“Love is not a matter of what happens in life. It's a matter of what's happening in your heart.”--Ken Keyes

What? You are a douche. Without having anything happen in your life, nothing could happen in your heart, could it there slick? Nothing happens in your heart anyway except for the pumping of blood. Guess where love really comes from? The penis.

“So our human life but dies down to its root, and still puts forth its green blade to eternity.”
--Henry David Thoreau

Cheesy. No wonder he was never married.

“Sometimes they write what I say and not what I mean.”
--Pedro Guerreo

No shit. Who would have thought that they couldn’t read your mind?

“Our soul mate is the one who makes life come to life.”
-- Richard Bach

There is no such thing as a “soul mate.” If that concept was even remotely feasible, hardly anyone would be married. Let’s think about it, if there is actually only one person for you, what are the odds of finding that person out of six billion people that inhabit this planet? If you believe in soul mates you are delusional. If you believe in love at first sight, you are delusional. If you believe in fate or destiny, or anything of the sort, you are delusional.

Eternal Optimism

2008-12-05T09:44:00.000-08:00

Happy people blow.

Cat Litter

2008-12-02T01:14:00.000-08:00

The sheer ignorance of buying cat litter is astounding. It’s almost as bad as those narcissistic bumper stickers on soccer mom’s SUV’s. Is your cat too good to shit in the woods like every other animal? You scum. Your pet is no better than the gopher that lives in my back yard (there isn’t really a gopher that lives in my back yard; I just needed a comparison, henceforth the gopher). There was a lady that came in the grocery store where I work the other day, and she said “this here cat litter is too cheap for my cats to use. They’ll need something a little nicer.” What a piece of scum. The ignorance. Unbelievable. Shortly after she made her way to the cat food, and she said “my cats can only eat this here Paws. They won’t touch anything else.” No shit lady. That’s because you coddle them to a ridiculous extent and buy them exactly what they want. I guarantee you that if you starved your spoiled cats for a few days, and then gave them the cheap brand to eat, they would eat it. Believe it or not, cats don’t have to have gourmet cat food to survive. They are called “predators” for a reason. She’s probably one of those dumbass women who whored around and fucked up all her chances at a relationship at an early age, therefore she lives by herself at home with a bunch of spoiled cats who have to shit in diatomaceous sedimentary sand, and eat Paws Select Gourmet. Pathetic.

Do people suck or what?

My Life Blows

2008-12-01T00:32:00.000-08:00

I am surrounded by people who I hate. Everyone is dumb and annoying. Everyone is always telling me to “smile.” I’ll be damned if I’m going to smile. I quit doing that a long time ago. Smiling is stupid. I will be the bitter person I naturally am. If you have a problem with that... if you have a problem with me not smiling... bite me.

I hate sports. Everyone around me is always talking about who won the last football game... or who the newest best athlete is. Who gives a shit? Sports blow. I’ll be damned if you’ll ever see me playing any sports. I used to play sports. Damn I must have sucked then. If you like sports... or have a problem with me not liking sports... bite me.

Do you know what I really hate? The Jonas Brothers. Fuck them. I hate cars too. All the guys I know talk about cars... and then they talk about... cars. Then after that they talk about... cars. Is that all you know anything about? Do you want to spend the rest of your life greased up under the hood of a car? Is that the only glimpse of a life you can fathom? Damn people suck.

Everyone is obsessed with video games. I hate video games. Everyone likes television. I hate television. I watched television once... big mistake. I really hate Dr. Phil. He’s nothing but a big insecure blubbering dick with ears. Everything he says is retarded. Anyone could say what he says... and all the guests on his show are dumbasses. I bet he does that on purpose. He probably knows that if he gets a smart person on his show (like me), he would be owned. What a pussy.

I hate sanitary people. Everyone is so concerned with being clean. The whole war about “fighting germs” is for pussies. You are all weak. I used to take showers. I used to put on deodorant... then I realized what a pussy I was. Now, I purposefully avoid all sanitary precautions. After I shit, do you think I was my hands? Hell no. If you wash your hands after you shit, you are a pussy. I was watching an old George Carlin video the other day, and he was talking about how he used to play in raw sewage as a child. What a badass. All you pussies who wash your hands and take baths are weak. Meanwhile, I, who do not wash my hands or take baths, am increasing my immunity, therefore making my body stronger and more efficient at battling germs and bacteria. I never get sick. I haven’t been sick in years. When the next disease emerges and wipes out half the earths population, you sanitary freaks better not bitch when you are diagnosed. I won’t get the disease, because my immune system is growing stronger every day.

If one more person walks out in front of my car at Wal-Mart, I’m running over them. Pedestrians have the right-of-way my ass.

I hate narcissistic parents. These parents always have some bumper sticker on the back of their car that says something like “parent of a straight "A" student” or “my child plays 17 sports.” Guess what? I bet the kid that sits next to your honor roll kid in school could whip your kid’s honor roll ass. The sheer ignorance of parents... as if your child is better than every other child. I’ve started keeping a sharpie in my car, so that when I park next to some soccer mom’s SUV at the grocery store that has some narcissistic bumper sticker on it, I can write some witty comment on the bumper sticker.

“Fuck your child. She probably has seven boyfriends and twelve STD’s. I hope those straight A’s come in handy one day when she’s dying of aids, you shitty, self-absorbed, wretched, conceited, egotistical, piece of scum mom. Go choke.”

Women... the Cancer of Today's Society

2008-11-28T00:27:00.000-08:00

PART 1... THE DELUSION OF FEMINISM

Starting with what they don’t teach us in schools... it’s a proven fact that by their very genetic nature women are reactive while males are proactive. This fact has nothing to do with any social engineering of the past, present, or future. It’s the real reason women have never done anything of any real world significance, and (most likely) never will. This is why I think “feminism” was brought about... just to lower the standards of achievement. So despite all of their delusions and lip service, in their heart of hearts, women just use feminism as an excuse for sexual freedom and special treatment. We all know women want to get paid like men in the work place, but not treated like men in the work place.

Since feminism began, we are constantly bombarded with advertisements of these successful “career” women as if every other woman is moving up the corporate ladder (bullshit. See below for the truth/facts of the matter) and becoming Vice presidents and CEO’s of major corporations... and women are made to look so much more intelligent than the low-life males. When in fact, according to the Department of Labor statistics, the no.1 occupation for women in the U.S. in 2006 was secretary or office assistant, with retail coming in at no. 2. There is only an extremely tiny, tiny percentage of female “professionals,” i.e., doctors or attorneys, business owners, etc. The vast majority of women simply are not willing to make the sacrifice for these demanding professions, and also by their very nature as females, most women simply do not have any interest in science, law, technology, or business. Why do the media portray women as godlike figures? Because no one wants to admit that feminism was/is a dismal failure. How did women develop this grossly distorted and wildly delusional false sense of superiority? Women hear nothing except how brilliant they are and how they can do no wrong from men everyday, because men will tell women anything they want to get in a woman’s pants. While I’m complaining about women, it’s the men aka: “horn dogs” that egg them on and only contribute to something that isn’t in the first place (if that makes sense). Also from a very early age, girls today are treated in school as superior, but with most all of the emphasis on self confidence, with little actual substantive input. Trust me, I witnessed it every day (primarily in elementary and middle school). The girls contributed nothing intelligent in class, yet they were portrayed as the more intelligent of the two species. “Girls are smarter because they are better behaved.” Girls are smarter because they are prettier.” This is how society reasons.

Ask a woman when The Equal Rights Amendment was passed and she’ll tell you, “the 1970’s.” (Pssst, the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed! But it is very important not to tell women this. This is information hidden in books that of which would upset their delicate delusion of superior intelligence.)

After all, why on Earth would you want to learn electrical engineering or auto mechanics when you can just have a man do it for you?... Or engage in any serious field of study for financial gain when you can just exploit lonely men by obtaining their property through the divorce court industry which constitutes legal fraud?

And have you never noticed that women are hardly ever institutionalized? After Andrea Yates murdered all of her children, 72% of women polled stated that it was the 'husband’s fault' for leaving her alone at home with the children... not only is this just bizarre, it illustrates that women exist in an alternate mental dimension that has nothing to do with reality.

The inherent problem with Feminism from the very beginning and to this day is that it implies that women can succeed and excel in life and in the world based solely on their gender, and they never could before simply because they were ‘oppressed.’ Feminism never stated, “if you work really, really hard, study, make great sacrifices, and dedicate yourself, then you will succeed” (the way in which men succeed). Not only have women not improved in any way in the last forty years since the advent of feminism, the mindset has made them completely worthless as human beings. Feminism started out nobly and innocent, promising more 'choices' and 'rights' for women. What it has now disintegrated into is 'freedom' for women from any and all responsibility and accountability.

Part 2... Women in the Corporate World

So you feminists think you make better managers? You think you make better CEO’s? You think there are more of you in the corporate world than there are men? You elitist cocksuckers are WRONG. There is a very accredited, and admired financial and business-related media company by the name of Forbes which ranks businesses and their prerogatives. If you feminists claim that businesses are more successful and profitable when women run the company than when men run the company, there must surely be more women executives than male executives, right? Have a look:

SMALL BUSINESSES:
1) Hansen Natural: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives as defined by Yahoo! Finance
2) Nutrisystem: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive
3) Under Armour: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive
4) VSE: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 1 key female executive
5) Quality Systems: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
6) PetMed Express: Male CEO, 2 key male executives and 1 key female executive
7) LHC: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
8) Dynamic Materials: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
9) Deckers Outdoor: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive
10) Bolt Technology: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives

LARGE BUSINESSES:
1) Chevron: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
2) Toyota Motors: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
3) Bank of America: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive
4) Berkshire Hathaway: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
5) JPMorgan Chase: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
6) AT&T: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
7) Hewlett Packard: Male CEO, 3 key male executives and 2 key female executives
8) McKesson: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive
9) Honda Motor: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
10) Verizon: Male CEO, 4 key female executives and 1 key female executive
FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES:
1) Wal-mart: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
2) Exxon Mobil: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
3) General Motors: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
4) Chevron: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
5) ConocoPhillips: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
6) General Electric: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
7) Ford Motor: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
8) Citigroup: Male CEO, 5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
9) Bank of America: Male CEO, 4 key male executives and 1 key female executive

10) American Intl. Group: Male CEO,5 key male executives and 0 key female executives
If you want sources, email me. I don’t feel like posting two or three pages worth of sources to clutter up my blog.

Part 3... Women Beyond the Political Arena

Here are some everyday observations, some of which are outside of the political arena that constitute my reasoning. Please take into account these incredibly biased points:

1. Even the most unlikable bitchy girls have more friends than you.

2. People are much more understanding, sympathetic, and compassionate towards women. Every minute detail in her life, no matter how trivial, must be respected and understood (dieting, manicures, etc...). Women are always somehow neglected. A boy could be on the brink of suicide, but would the media care? No. Which brings me to my next point...

3. The media is inherently biased towards women, and has always openly backed the feminist movement.

4. A more disturbing point: If a man accuses a woman of being abusive towards him, she actually considers it “flattering.” Male bashing is taken as a sign of female empowerment over men. Society even condones a female mistreating her partner. It is “funny” or even “cute.” A woman can act severely harsh towards her spouse, and nobody thinks it’s wrong. On the other hand, even the slightest degree of abuse on his part is condemned to the fullest, and not tolerated.

5. Women team up against men in “buddy circles.” I’ve witnessed this personally countless times in doctors offices where women will bunch up together and gossip about their husbands. Do men ever form “buddy circles” to gossip about their wives? No. If they did their wives would be outraged.

6. Another disturbing point: Women are pampered in the legal system to a ridiculous extent (see part 4 for more). Women are never charged with assault or harassment. This is actually encouraged by the media. When a woman commits murder, even if she has no justifiable alibi, and is obviously guilty, there will still be public outcry for her release.

7. Woman think all males are obsessed with them. Most women are total egomaniacs (on the exterior). On the interior, they have the self-esteem of a piece of celery.

8. Her opinions are more important than yours. They must be respected, no matter how absurd. Her wishes must always be answered, because she is a female, and you are not.

9. Women want you to stick up for them, but respect their independence. Translation: bail them out of trouble when they fail at life, but never bring it up during conversation. (Maddox reference)

10. During dating women always act as though you’re “lucky to be with them.” They are all elitist cocks.

11. Discrimination against a woman is discrimination. Discrimination against a man is equal opportunity.

12. Women rule the household. Notice fathers always say shit like “well... go ask your mother.” He is afraid to make the ultimate decision, in fear of his wife disapproving. This is a double standard. The counter example does not apply. Furthermore, when a woman argues her point, her husband never challenges her... because that’s “polite”... even if he disagrees with what she’s saying. On the other hand, if by some chance he has the balls to express one of his own opinions, she will critique and argue back, and he will take it.

13. In terms of pregnancy, a man has absolutely no say so whatsoever in deciding the fate of his unborn child.

14. People blindly accept the idea of a “woman’s intuition.” What a crock. There is no intuition.

15. Men can be insulted on a routine basis to a ridiculous extent. If a woman is insulted in the slightest form, there will be public outcry.

16. People think it’s okay to make fun of and joke about male anatomy. When was the last time it was politically correct to joke about a woman’s vagina?

17. 85% of the world’s homeless are male. Organizations give much more assistance to poor woman than they give to poor males.

18. When a relationship fails, it’s the husbands/boyfriends fault. Proof: Child custody cases.

19. “Girl power” and “female empowerment” are socially acceptable and politically correct terms. When’s the last time you turned on the news to see a “man’s power” or “male empowerment” group, cult, or organization? Those groups would surely be considered sexist.

20. The media always addresses women’s “self-esteem issues,” as if all women are somehow handicapped and deserve special treatment because of their low self-confidence. In essence this is contra-positive though, because merely raising this issue should be considered demoralizing to women.

21. People regard her opinions as a basic standard which must always be followed in full agreement. In other words: I'm always expected to agree with her. Plus, she's always considered to be right, anyway.

22. For some reason, women are unable to be happy unless they claim everything is against them.

23. Even the kindest woman sets unrealistic standards when seeking her soul mate. He must meet a minimal height requirement, and have an athletic build, high earnings, etc... Ironically, a woman expects him to be understanding of her problems. Thus, if she's very heavy, or, she's living in a small apartment, or, she has severe medical issues, or whatever the case. The man is expected to accept her flaws.

24. A woman can be narrow minded, or, "set-in-her-ways". She can be a "Know-it-all", without being loathed by others (on the other hand, a “know-it-all” male is an arrogant bastard). For example: A mother hires a carpenter, and then begins telling him how to do his job. What a wretched bitch.

25. A woman can revere herself as physically attractive to any extent necessary. They can openly claim themselves to be “extremely beautiful.” If I made that exact same claim, I would be a conceited prick.

26. (As stated earlier). Women want to get paid like men in the work place, but not treated like men in the work place.

27. When a man treats a woman wonderfully, why does she try desperately to prove otherwise?

28. The Louisiana State Senate has passed a bill allowing for judges to approve the physical or chemical castration of sex offenders. The bill has moved on to the State House of Representatives. This bill should be deemed unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court, as a violation of Men’s Rights. For obvious reasons pertaining to the human anatomy, males are the only gender physically able to castrated. Why should men be able to have such a humiliating punishment while women cannot? Most importantly, where are the feminists marching for equality on this one? If a man can have his balls cut off, a woman should be able to have her fallopian tubes ripped out.

29. Any opposition to the feminist movement is “sexist.”

30. The Nazis blamed the Jews for their own failures. Women blame men for their own inadequacies.

31. Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%.

32. Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes, women constitute 11% more of the voters. Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.

33. Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Department Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs. 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butt pinched.

34. Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs. women at 6 years]

35. Even though female pilots have an accident rate four times that of male pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire female pilots anyway, because it would be discriminating against woman to do otherwise.

36. The crash rate of female drivers is twice that of male drivers.

37. The woman is the victim. The man is the oppressor. The child is the property.

38. Children from fatherless homes account for:

63% of youth suicides.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions
71% of pregnant teenagers
71% of all high school dropouts
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders
85% of all youths sitting in prisons
90% of all homeless and runaway children

You might think a "loving mother" would want to protect her child and keep him from becoming one of the above statistics, but in most cases you would be wrong. Mothers are too concerned with sole custody of the child, so they can obtain child support, and legally confiscate his belongings. The well being of the child rarely takes precedence over personal gain.

PART 4... Women From a Legal Aspect

The legal system is very hostile to men. In domestic abuse cases, any false allegation a woman makes is likely to ruin a man's life. "Must Arrest” laws require police to make an arrest, regardless of the officer's judgment. "Primary aggressor" laws pre-dispose police toward arresting men rather than women, regardless of the truth of an event. "No drop prosecution" policies pressure prosecutors to pursue a criminal conviction, even when they would otherwise drop charges. America's Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) effectively denies the existence of abuse against men, and provides hundreds of millions of dollars in support only to women who claim to be victims of abuse. Clearly, the cards are stacked against men. Legally, a woman can screw a man’s life over for no reason at all, and get paid in the process. Check out child custody cases. Restraining orders can be filed against men for no reasons at all except “I’m afraid of him.” The man is to have no contact with his wife or children or he will be arrested. No proof of abuse is necessary. It’s the woman’s word against his. Because of the leverage of her vague, non-descript account of ‘abuse’ which she does not have to prove under current divorce law in every state, she wins the house and full custody of the children, with the restraining order still active indefinitely with no visitation of his children, AND he is ordered to now pay $1400.00 a month in child support for the two children.

Damn woman suck. Feminists suck even worse. Environmental feminists suck even worse than that. I can’t go on with this. It’s too painful. I’m going to go do something much less painful, like stick my dick in an oven.

Disturbia Sucks

2008-11-25T00:27:00.000-08:00

Have any of you seen the movie “Disturbia?” I was watching it the other night, and was disgusted. The horror genre has gone to shit, but damn, this movie couldn’t scare a third grader. I was sitting on my couch... sipping some orange juice... thinking “damn, is this supposed to be scary?”
As I’m sure you know, the movie starts out with a kid fishing with his dad, and on their way back home, the son who is driving hits a car and flips the car he and his dad are riding in. Then some jackass truck runs over their flipped car (which is laying in the center of the road... as if the truck couldn’t see their flipped car in the middle of the road... what a crock) which kills the boy’s father.
Later on in the movie the kid is in class and his dickhead Spanish teacher makes some smartass comment about the boy’s dead father, so the boy punches him. (Too bad he didn’t rip his throat out with his bare hands... that would have been badass). Anyway, the kid is sentenced to house arrest. While he is sentenced to house arrest, some whore girl moves in next door, and they take up espionage together. Earlier on he had been watching her through his window with binoculars, and she knew he was watching her, but later on she said some smartass comment like “so you were watching me?” No shit... you watched him watch you. Don’t you love it when girls act like they hate stalkers, but it builds their self-esteem to know someone is watching them, so they secretly like it? What’s more, while he was watching her, she didn’t even put the blinds down. What a whore. So in essence, she was provoking it by letting it go on, when she easily could have put a stop to it if she had actually wanted to.
A bit later, she made the following remark to the boy: “Did you not even notice my hair?” What an ignorant self-absorbed bitch. I would have none of it. Any girl that said that to me would be punched in the face.
On to the horror aspect of the movie...
So the criminal boy, the whore, and some Asian kid are spying on their neighbor. All of a sudden we see massive amounts of blood splatter on an open window. Then we see a collection of murder weapons hanging from the window sill. Saws, knives, meat cleavers, hatchets, etc... all hanging from an open window for the world to see. What a slick guy. Any murderer that sucks that bad at murdering should have their own special layer of hell in which to burn. Demons should hack eternally at their flesh with sieves, pitchforks, and hooks. It’s one thing to suck at your job, but damn.
Anyway, in the end the shitty murderer next door kidnap’s the criminal boy’s half-witted mother (who of course liked and trusted the shitty murderer throughout the movie, like a typical dumb bitch), and it’s up to her son to save her dumb ass. He saves her, kills the shitty murderer, and lives happily ever after with the self-adsorbed whore.

What a great movie. Truly, an epic.
I recommend this movie to any high school girl with STD’s.

Things I Hate, Part 2

2008-11-22T01:28:00.000-08:00

1. TAXES
I was doing some number crunching earlier today while glancing over a few paychecks with some fellow employees. The government acquires federal and state income taxes along with social security, which is deducted from each paycheck. Just looking at some numbers... assuming every employee made around $30,000 (which is far below average) per year... lets get some figures on just what the government takes in, without various personal income tax deductions per say... all figures are relative. Bringing in $31,200 per year, the employee will pay approximately $150 in taxes per week, seeing as he brings in around $600 per week. That would be $650 per month in taxes, and $7,800 per year. Keep in mind that $31,200 is gross, without tax deduction. Now, let’s multiply $7,800... which is what a $31,200 wage earner would pay per year... and multiply it by the U.S. population. An estimated 2008 count claims there are approximately 304,095,000 U.S. citizens. Assuming they all brought in $31,200 per year, the government would bring in $2,371,941,000,000 per year. That’s a low figure, seeing as $31,200 is below average wage. And that’s not including taxes taken in from corporations, sales taxes, etc... The government brings in an astronomical amount of money each year, taken straight from the citizen, and the national deficit is still approximately $1,046,944,350,7903. Can anyone say cut spending?

2. HOLLYWOOD
The bastards in Hollywood are going on strike because they aren’t getting paid enough. I suppose your seven or eight digit salaries just can’t cover all the damn haircuts and manicures, huh? I hate actors anyway. They’re all a bunch of left-winged radical nuts who want to drink women’s breast milk and switch Campbell’s Chicken Noodle to human fetus. Umm, human fetus soup. Tasty. I think we should all boycott movie theatres in addition to Hot Topic, just so the box offices won’t bring in jack shit, and the celebrity highlife will come crashing down. Hell, I’d love to see Paris Hilton sleeping under a bridge staying warm next to a fire in a barrel. It might just make my day. Hollywood sucks. If celebrities are your idols, you suck.

3. GUITAR HERO
I’ve refused to play the damn thing since the beginning. I remember when it first came out a few years or so ago... some friends were like “hey, lets go play Guitar Hero at Wal-Mart!” I couldn’t give up the opportunity to throw a derogatory comment in.. “Fuck no, you are losers.” It has actually been proven that real musicians (people in famous bands, Dave Mustaine for example) suck at Guitar Hero. It takes no musical talent to be good at it. So just know, if you are good at Guitar Hero, you’d probably make a shitty musician (in real life)... so I suppose just keep playing video games, since that’s so cool, right? You all suck.

4. HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL
If you’re one of the cute little high school teeny-boppers that stands in drooling awe of that fag guy in High School Musical, you should be shipped off and exported in a wooden crate to Siberia. Yes, every one of you. I think a little Russian prison would straighten you up nicely... perhaps “unpussify” you. After a year or so in Siberia, you should be forced to live the rest of your days in Russia. Do you think people in Russia would line up to see garbage like that? Fuck no. Only in a pussy ass nation like this one could High School Musical lead the box office. Damn people suck. If you like High School Musical, you suck. You should be stoned publically by the Russian townspeople for being an idiot. You should be shown no pity. Let there be no mercy as the stones are cast upon you.

5. GUYS WHO JACK OFF IN PEANUT BUTTER & STICK THEIR PENIS IN A MUFFLER
You must be a really sick prick, huh? Do you ever stop and think to yourself “damn, I’m one sick prick.” I mean seriously, why in gods name would you feel the overwhelming urge to stick your penis in a muffler. I doubt your penis appreciates that. “Oh no, not the muffler. Nooooooooo :(” The sad part is, I’ve heard of both of these being done. I think putting your penis in a muffler should be a felony. That’s sexually abusing a car, is it not? I doubt the car wants anything to do with your penis. That should at least come with some jail time. “What are you in prison for?” “I killed a man with a chainsaw.” What are you in prison for?” “I put my penis in a muffler.”

6. CELL PHONES
I should rephrase this for clarification: “I don’t hate cell phones themselves, I just hate people who are obsessed with cell phones.” What’s up with the modern obsession with cell phones anyway? All people talk about is their new cell phone... or their new ringtone. Who gives a shit? It’s a damn phone. Guess how long I’ve had my cell phone? 5 years. I’ve contemplated getting a new one, but eh, the hell with it. It works, so why pay for another one? Why can’t people be satisfied with what they already have? Everyone always has to be getting something new. It just goes to show how materialistic modern culture is, and it reveals our semi-civilized society for what it really is. I know this one kid who has over a thousand texts per month. What a douche. Texting your life away... how pathetic. If all you think about is texting... or new ringtones... you must be a shallow sorry excuse of a person. I pity you.

7. FAMILY GUY
Family Guy S-U-C-K-S. (<-Notice the hyphen usage to signify emphasis). The only cool episode I’ve seen is the one where the mother bangs Gene Simmons, and that’s only because there’s a favorable mention to Kiss. Other than that, Family Guy blows. Very little comical intellect... obviously a direct rip off of South Park: the ultimate cartoon satirical masterpiece. Family Guy is a perfect example of one of those shows that has one or two memorable lines/moments that are watered down and drawn out to create a twenty-three minute episode of something about as interesting as the equivalent of watching shit being flushed down a toilet.

Things I Hate, Part 1

2008-11-21T00:05:00.000-08:00

1. HAPPY PEOPLE
Is it just me, or are happy people almost always inherently dumber than depressed people? Perhaps it’s due to the lense of realism the depressed are blessed with, seeing as they see the world for what it really is, and if you see the world for what it really is, minus the propaganda and delusion and fantasy and bullshit, is it possible for one not to be depressed?

2. CEO’s
Presidents and Chiefs of corporations on average get paid 433 times that of the lowest wage earner within the company. Seems a little shitty, does it not? CEO’s plan and organize the business, meaning they make the decisions on how to best fit the business’s best interest, and if they fuck up, they earn the same regardless. Actually, if they really fuck up and drive the business into the pit, they are paid normal salary for a set amount of time after the business’s collapse, and in the current economic crisis, compensated extraordinary amounts of money by the Federal Government that comes from our income taxes. The stockholders, shareholders, and investors who drove and built the business are just shit out of luck, while the one responsible for fucking the business, and his small band of thugs, are sent on their way with more amounts of money than most countries are worth. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you fascism.

3. WHORES
I hate wretched gutter whores. Screw them. I hope you die of VD, so the world will be rid of your sorry ass. I watch girls daily acquire their newest of prey, so they can lure him into their evil layer of seduction and tantalization, and fuck him... and afterwards he realizes, being the dumbass and horn dog that he is, that the sick lustful whore never sought any attachment other than strictly physical, and that he is just one of many in a long detestable line of people who were done the same wrongs... or is it even a wrong if he indulged willingly? Screw him too. Screw everyone who fucks for the fuck of it.

4. GUYS WHO SNIFF THEIR BALLS
I’ve asked a few guys lately if they rub and scratch their balls, and then sniff their hand to see if their balls smell bad. Almost everyone of them admitted to sniffing their balls... at least once. Ball scratching originated from the Hebrew term “Legarbetz,” or so I read on Urban Dictionary (a bit of useless knowledge for you). I just can’t believe it’s true... you perverts sniff your own balls. What do you expect them to smell like? Cream? Lotion? Fritos? Next time just stick your finger up your ass and smell that too, hell you might as well, right? If you sniff your balls (or your asshole), you suck.

5. NUTCRACKERS
Why are they called “nutcrackers?” I actually tried to crack a nut in one once, and the nutcracker broke. Who is retarded enough to pay a few hundred dollars for a nutcracker that can’t even crack nuts? They are worthless. They are ugly. They are a big damn waste of money. Nutcrackers suck. If you like nutcrackers, you suck.

6. HOT TOPIC
When I first started shopping at Hot Topic , maybe around my 8th grade year, It seemed like a haven to me. I was new on the metal scene, and all I saw or knew about was the gay ass polo striped preppy Abercrombie “look how rich and cool I am” clothing. I walked in Hot Topic and it was 100% pure goth and metal. Now they’re sponsoring Underoath at Mayhem Fest. Three fourths of their merchandise selection is trendy emo screamo crap. The few metal t-shirts they still carry are all bunched in the corner at the back of the store. I’m surprised all their employees don’t fall over sideways from the damn comb-overs. I’m boycotting Hot Topic. Screw them.

My Blog: Blueprint of a Strange Mind...

2008-11-20T19:37:00.000-08:00

Imagine you’re me. You see the world for what it really is: a gross, disturbing place where beauty is destroyed by humans and humans are destroyed by humans. Every person is caught up in their own false reality, focusing solely on themselves without giving a damn about anyone else. When we turn on the news we see nothing but death, and the decaying of everything we should fight to protect, but does that stop us from watching it? No... we find pleasure in hearing about bad things. The only good news is bad news.

When you’re driving down the road at night and you see flashing lights in the distance, why are you magnetized towards them? Why do you suddenly get excited, and feel some sort of sick rush? Why are you thinking within yourself “damn, I can’t wait to see what’s happened to that mangled car up there.”

As oppressive governments slaughter their citizens abroad, we walk the streets and go about our daily lives without a care in the world. As people in Africa die from disease, we go to work every day in fear that we won’t be able to pay our television bill. As suicide bombers blow up school buses in the Middle East, we sit at home and play Nintendo (or whatever the hell all the kids play these days)... hoping to reach the next high score on some piece of shit plug-in-drug video game... which is really accomplishing jack shit, isn’t it.

I am so bitter.

In this blog I will write about how much people suck, politics, philosophy, self-indulgence, music, but most of all, the irrelevant, pointless, and shallow activities and mindsets the common person practices. What I write may be extremely offensive to dumbasses. It may also be extremely offensive to those who take part in popular culture and the mainstream. If you consider yourselves to be a dumbass, or part of the mainstream, I highly encourage you to read this, so you can see how everything you like is stupid... oh wait... I’m supposed to tell you not to read it. Ooops.

Enjoy, cocksuckers.