Peter Hitchens: Deconstructed

Comme je disais--a very nasty sort of person.

The really appalling fact about Christopher Hitchens, however, is that, compared to his brother Peter Hitchens (who is still, unfortunately, alive), he was a Prince of a Fellow....

Of Peter Hitchens, it need only be said that he is the very type of a British Conservative (malignant stupidity barely balanced by vile hypocrisy), who says things like, "The point of left wing propaganda is to make us feel powerless," while, instead of being a gay atheist (like his brother Christopher), Peter is a heterosexual theist--and all the worse for it.

Alas! Christopher Hitchens died many times before he died, both from his self-inflicted cancer, and from his dastardly, total sell-out on the Iraq War:

With griping, terminal cancer and flagrant dishonor visibly gnawing at him, he lied, over and over again, in his  advocacy of the villainous and piratical military adventure of the Iraq War.  And for what?  Well, interestingly enough, for the same reason that  so many intelligent people in this world, who should know better, remain faithful adherents, to the end,

of vicious, soul-destroying Abrahamic religions:  He could not bring himself to disbelieve the official lies of the Powers That Are.  Stupid story, quickly told, best soon forgotten.

It is also possible, of course--indeed, virtually certain--that he was bribed (by the aforesaid Existent Powers).  He was, after all, a hack.

With things going so terribly wrong in the world (I'm referring to the suppression of ethnic minorities) it is wonderful to see the late, brilliant rapprochement of Russia and Germany

Actually, somehow--maybe as a coincidental aspect of Mindfulness--I absolutely do believe in Karma, or, if you will (Divine) Justice...

So much so that I quite fear it, in almost the same ridiculous way that Christians and Muslims fear the Devil and Eternal Hellfire.  Such that, when one of God's Wretched Blessèd Ones (a fat, ignorant Samoan girl in what appeared to be the eighth month of pregnancy) asked a favor of me, as one did this evening,--to buy her cup of coffee--and I was perfectly aware that she might well be gestating the Maitreya Buddha his very self, judging by the damned, insolent, matter-of-fact way she just said "Gimme," and I snarled at her, in my coldest, meanest, white-person voice, "Are you asking for money? Please go away."  Then I trembled, knowing the (Divine) Retribution (Karma) that I was letting myself in for.

Damn, this "playful" misogyny of mine, which causes me sometimes to proclaim that the Holy Virgin is a whore, and at other times to refuse to succour the very Mother of God, is going to be the Death of me if I'm not very, very careful.

White House Can't Explain Why We're In Níger

Almost, I pity this man: to mouth such transparent, palpable, time-serving bullshit would put his soul in fearful jeopardy, if he were not entirely, cynically, utterly and absolutely devoid either of soul or conscience.  Still, as a responsible spokesman for our government, he should be given a fair trial--and, when convicted of perjury (impiety and obscenity), hanged by the neck until dead. 

But how is it, the more they count the number of gay men in the world, the (more absurdly) fewer they find them?

After all, Alfred Kinsey, somehow, seems to have figured it about right: 15% of men are gay, and about 5% of women are Lesbians.  Add them together (though they're nothing alike) and divide by two, and you get 10%--the approximate proportion of all major standard deviances among humans, including left-handedness, color-blindness and alcoholism.  About ten times as many as modern science seems to be able to come up with by trying to count them directly.  What is the deal with modern science and its counting methods?  

How many "Good" Roman Emperors were gay?  Well, all except Augustus, Claudius, Caligula, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius--and maybe Nero and Domitian (who were not, of course, Good).  That's way more than half. And nowadays they are finding that, without exactly being or thinking of themselves as gay, at least 10% of men, who consider themselves straight, only, or primarily, have sex with other men; while at least 20% of men prefer watching gay male to heterosexual pornography.  And I hate to tell you guys,  that, whatever "queer theorists" (postmodern Lesbians and other social constructionists) may tell you, it does matter, if you're a male, with a penis, what you like to watch:  You are what you like to watch.

Hillary Is STILL More Disliked Than Trump

This young man has got it all perfectly, exactly correct.   I have nothing to add.

To those MANY IDIOTS still in a Huff and a Lather and a Pother over what Harvey Weinstein did to Rose McGowan:

Rory Calhoun.  Guy Madison.  Rock Hudson.  Tab Hunter.
-


Capite?


Am I missing something?

The INTERESTING thing about China is that

It's no longer a 3rd-world country.  Sometime apparently in the last couple of decades, it, and its billion or so people, simply moved up a notch or two to first-world--and the automatic spectre, evoked by the word "China," of disease-ridden, famine-decimated, starving and dying masses of people, just sort of faded away.  No reason any more to send them missionary relief.  Hmm.

Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrivé!

Email from my lawyer:  The check (amount as yet unknown) of my insurance settlement is in the mail.  Time now to do everything, spend as much as I can before the remainder goes into a trust fund (in order not to lose my welfare benefits)--I think I have two or three weeks. 

So, before I leap into the abyss, a pause, to render thanks and to reflect.  I was looking towards a fairly miserable end of life--without so much as a piano to compose, and play Bach and Haydn on, or a decent sound system to hear music on.  That would have been indeed a grim final decade (between now and, say, I figure, outside, 85 years old).  So while I'm at it (buying musical stuff), I'll get me a nice chest of recorders and see about connecting up with that amateur recorder-playing society here in Honolulu.  If I want to. Then, of course, there's all that software, and printing apps that I'll need to download my inspirations (if I have any) directly from my (I incline, thus far) Casio weighted-touch electric piano.

And then--while fully conscious of my being charity (else there had been no insurance settlement)--Is there not a certain amount that I might contribute to diminish the cruelty (especially to children and animals--say, an anti-circumcision or an anti-corporal punishment fund, or a Yemeni, Libyan and/or Afghan children's relief fund) of the world I am about to depart from?  When you think of the horrors the United States and its NATO allies are, even as we speak, perpetrating in those countries, you'd think (would you not?) that People of Conscience would be finding ways to mitigate and alleviate them--if not, for some reason, entirely forbear from perpetrating them.

Trump has a dangerous disability - George F. Will interview MSNBC

Seriously, I don't like George Will, nor at all respect him, but this, I think, he has got just right:  Trump cannot think or talk rationally.  This is a graver and more fundamental assessment of Trump than the psychiatric diagnosis ("malignant narcissism") which has lately received popular attention, and it better explains and accounts for more of Trump's speech and behavior.  Knock as you will, there's nobody home.

Afghanistan: ‘I wanted to go to school’ – US troops allegedly ‘open fire...

As with the images from Abu Ghraib, there is a certain palpable indifference--even suppressed amusement--in the official disclaimers to this video,   which gives one to understand that, for the blackguardly swine who constitute the United States Military, it is something like an advertisement for themselves.  Far from being ashamed to be seen as child-murderers, our proud mercenary butchers-in-uniform glory in the role, and in the actuality, of their being inhuman, ghoulish thugs. Which is also why, even more than their simple enjoyment of inflicting torture on hapless victims, they relish the reputation that such obscene cruelty wins for them.  They soooo enjoy being bad. The fact that I quite understand them does not mean, however, that I forgive or excuse them, or that they should be forgiven or excused.  The Afghan lads are right:  All American soldiers in Afghanistan--every one--should be shot dead.

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 only in the Seraglio) I perceive, love and worship my Roxelana.  It makes the fair management, and the just and equitable transfer, of political, or any other kind of power utterly impossible.

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 are perhaps even full-bushed "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 stark naked, and try to induce the said 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 women refused--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 fend them off, he might not have to endure the loathsome embraces of creatures manifestly inferior to himself.

¡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.

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

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 despair of explaining it to him), 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 Express.co.UK): "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)...

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.

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.

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?

But getting back to our sheep, the greatest minds--scientists, philosophers, poets, musicians and composers--of the 16th and 17th centuries were (Catholic and) Protestant Englishmen (and Englishwomen)

and half of them--Roger Williams, anyway--were American.  Now how did that come about?

Admit that this is a tad elliptical, and that it omits Galileo and Leibniz and J.S. Bach (and Molière and Racine--not to mention Palestrina and Victoria), still it has a certain postmodern "narrative" truth, in promoting to their due and proper eminence, Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, Milton, Byrd, Newton and Purcell.  And, at least, it places Milton and Newton, where they plainly belong, as first among the first, which not even Voltaire was wholly able to do (as regards Milton--though he seems to have known and appreciated the genius of Congreve): Perhaps the young Arouet was thinking of Milton's being, according to Dr. Johnson, "second in performance," not unnaturally, and certainly forgiveably, in the opinion of many, after Homer, Virgil and (maybe) Dante--though I, personally, think Comus (and several others of Milton's long poems) second to absolutely nobody's performance.

Just watched Episode 3 of Season 2 of Club de Cuervos:

Je l'adore.

10/8/2017, And, having binge-watched it through the last episode of the last (3rd) season, I grew ever more engrossed and adored it even more.  Wonderful characters! Doña Beatriz, for example, and, supremely, Hugo Sánchez and his friend Cármelo.