Monday, October 16, 2017

My Problem, as a Buddhist and a Skeptic Philosopher,

Is that I perfectly understand intellectually, and concur with Sunyata/Emptiness/Non-Existence of my own Self--and yet I see/perceive/am vibrantly aware of Self (or, let us say, "Suchness") in the universe around me, and, furthermore, I value it, and cherish it, above all existent things; especially in Nature, Children, Animals and beautiful young People.  I am Suleiman the Magnificent, and in everything (not just in my Seraglio) I perceive, love and worship Roxelana.  It makes the fair management, and the just and equitable transfer, of political, or any other kind of power utterly impossible.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

But what did Harvey Weinstein DO?

I've forced myself to read some of the (repulsive, nauseating) depositions of women of the sort whom, I suppose, for want of a better word, we might call "starlets" (although some of them may be full-fledged "stars"), who were, purportedly, "abused," or "assaulted," or "harrassed" by Mr. Weinstein--and I surmise, from what I've read, that the ugly, big, fat, hideously mutilated (circumcised), Jewish Mr. Weinstein made a practice of inviting these starlets, one at a time, up to his hotel room, where he would appear before them in a bathrobe, or else entirely naked, and try to induce the not unnaturally horrified and disgusted young (and not so young) starlets to have sex with him (or give him a full body massage, or submit to cunnilingus, or whatever).  It appears that most of these starlets refused (or say they did)--but that quite a large number (perhaps as many as a third) permitted Mr. Weinstein to have his way with them, and even came back repeatedly for more afterward.  As I gather that heterosexual men do, when soliciting sex from starlets (or bimbos) whom they don't intend to remunerate for it, Mr. Weinstein seems to have operated on a percentage basis.  To whom this matters, and why they consider it newsworthy, or what possible interest it could be to anybody (with an i.q. larger than her shoe size), I have not a clue.

What is, I guess, sort of interesting, is that the starlets (or bimbos) who did wind up having sex, or something like sex, with Mr. Weinstein, reveal themselves to have been every bit as repulsed by the unprepossessing Mr. Weinstein's person and character as those who fled incontinent from their first interview with him and refused ever to have any sort of sex with him--but they did it anyway; sometimes (with their gorge rising) repeatedly.  I am so glad that I'm gay.  Call me misogynist: but I've never had sex with somebody who repulsed me, and, frankly, I coldly despise those who have. In fact, as I think about it, despising and being repulsed are near-allied.  It occurs to me that the primary evolutionary advantage of our species' sexual dimorphism may not be so much for its convenience to the bigger, stronger, more intelligent and more ethical sex in overmastering rejection, as in that, being stronger than they and better able to fight them off, he might never have to endure the loathsome embraces of those manifestly inferior to himself.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

¡Maguerite Yourcénar and Mary Renault do fucking NOT write good (or even passably acceptable) male homosexual pornography!

We really need to keep these sweaty, hot-breathing bulldykes, with their sickening propensity for 'romantic' relationships, out of (and away from) the world of gay male sexuality, which they so obviously and revoltingly yearn after, and which they so appallingly misconstrue and misrepresent. I feel, when I have read the Memoirs of Hadrian, or The Persian Boy, like someone in need of an emetic, or an enema. Or both at once.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Michael Savage (representative idiot) reacts to the passing of Hugh Hefner

What's interesting, sort of, is that this much-admired moron unabashedly reiterates the typical, typically stupid, human female heterosexual's usual complaint against depiction of pretty young women's bodies: That, the majority of women being fat and ugly, men who have had their desires kindled by the images in Playboy, say, will be repulsed by them (who are fat and ugly--and so won't fuck them). I find it astonishing, and in a certain way rather amusing, that Lumpen Heterosexuals, both male and female, suppose that this is a valid argument (and are not ashamed to argue it) against publishing explicit images of naked, pretty young women.   You can tell that they also think it's a good reason not to publish, or to view, explicit images of naked, handsome youths and men--and they come very close to saying so--before a sense of imminent danger, looming unexpectedly, ties their tongues and silences them.

But of course, Mr. Savage seems totally unaware of the high quality of fiction and political writing published in Playboy--and, in a way, I hope he never learns of it.

Something I have not till now attempted is finding a definition of "Isis," basically because, by the way the word is most often used, and by whom, I don't believe that such a thing as "Isis" exists...

And so, I find (quoting from "Isis traces its origins to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQL) in 2004 following the U.S. invasion.

"But the brutal tactics and videotaped beheadings used by al-Zarqawi were increasingly seen as too extreme, even for al-Qaeda."

Really, I don't need to quote much more to establish what utter bullshit is being spewed by the Deep State about so-called "Isis," do I?

"Increasingly seen" by fucking whom, pray?  As if any reaction against the damned iniquitous U.S. invasion of Iraq could have been "too extreme"!  Have these "increasing seers" somehow failed to see the pictures from Abu Ghraib?  Or that wonderful little video called "Collateral Murder"? Apparently.

But still again, we earnest, doubtful Americans must confess that, but for the liberal persuasion of John Locke, and our arguments against his damned tabula rasa, our own proud certainty of Conscience, and the Voice of God within us, could never have been born (out of Congregationalism and Unitarianism)...

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Still, why did it take us all roughly 1,400 years (from the oaths of Theodosius in 395, to the quiet dropping out and slipping away of the American Transcendentalists in the middle-early 19th century),

for the insanity and absurdity, and utter intellectual insufficiency of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, (and the inarguable good sense of atheism) to be realized by the majority of responsible citizens?  Et bien, the sticking point, according to the (ridiculously bad) philosopher John Locke, has been the fundamental, but quite irrational, belief held to by John Locke and his self-annointed fellow responsible citizens, that, without at least a generic belief in God, people will not be virtuous enough to be responsible citizens (God being the source of virtues).  Silly-ass, circular reasoning like this has long held the governments of this world lock'd in the embrace of their official religions, and are yet popular (and thought to be persuasive) among Mahometans.

Saturday, October 07, 2017

The problem with the term "queer" is that it is used by feminists, neo-Marxists, and trannies to assert their equality with gay men....

But, no thank you, Ladies (and Laddies): Morally, ethically and intellectually, you are far beneath and behind us. Moreover, I do not write dreadful-ugly modern classical music nor postmodernist prose.  And I think "Sex Crime" is an oxymoron, if it is anything at all.  You see, we couldn't even agree to disagree.

Thursday, October 05, 2017

The thing that makes me really sick about the brutal repression of Catalonia, is that NOT ONE (except Scotland)

of the E.U. member states has had the minimally decent courage to denounce it.

Our Heart is breaking, breaking...not for the massacre of shit-kickers in Las Vegas (whose "music," after all, we deeply fuckin' loathe, and about whose lives and persons, frankly, we care little, though we are sorry to see them shot up),

But for the brave Catalonians beaten--some severely wounded-- by the Spanish Guardia Civil (agents of as mean and despicable a fascist prime minister as Spain has seen in a half century), called "disloyal" by Don Felipe (¿"desleales"?), and threatened with eternal cash-cow subservience to the rag-tag imperium that calls itself the Kingdom of Spain.

How is it that the Braganças were never this viciously hateful?