King of Crazy Town

Short post on the "PUA Hate" shooter, since I suppose there may be some use for a word or two from a female who's really got no dog in any fight: This guy was king of crazy town. How do I know? Because when I first saw a picture of him I thought I must have clicked on the wrong link, because what the hell, kid's too pretty to have trouble landing girls. Then I found out that he's rich, too. Look, I am not into young guys—I wasn't into them even when I was young—and rich-from-birth fellows these days generally annoy me with their lack of education. But a lot of girls do like rich guys per se, and are there any of us who don't like pretty ones? Yes, way underage, but until he opened his stupid mouth, I dunno, I still might have... AUGH! STOP THE VIDEO! MAKE THE NOISES NOT COME OUT OF ITS MOUTH!

Conclusion:

1. To be that rich and pretty and somehow not get laid, you have to be a the perfect picture of a sergeant major general of (I won't say douche, that word is overused, that word is dead, that word is... auugh...) cough DOUCHEVILLE.

2. You can't blame the PUA/manosphere web region for creating Sergeant Major General Crazy-Shades, because, well, for starters, he was ANTI-PUA, precisely because their advice didn't work for him—for very, very obvious reasons. Look, if someone with an eating disorder shot up a bunch of fashion models because they paid for Jenny Craig and it didn't work, would you outlaw Jenny Craig, or would you assume that person was unhinged to begin with? Jenny Craig might be a ripoff, sure. But are you going to cancel high school because of Dylan Klebold?.... Actually, that's not such a bad idea. The kids would love it, and I would finally be able to afford to buy an apartment without having to worry about paying $500 in taxes a month on the "property" I "owned." Parents, pay for your own little crazy fuckers.

3. If you really wanted to stop future outbreaks of losers such as Crazy-Shades here, you would teach rich people to raise their kids properly again. I hate to say the English are ever right about anything, but oi aristoi used to know, at least through tradition and instinct and still remembering who Heliogabalus was, that if their kids never faced any sort of humbling experience or frustrating trial, they would grow up to be shitty, lunatic monsters. If you must blame anything for this, blame it on the demise of confusing, poorly-written Latin grammars and corporal punishment in the private schools. This kid shouldn't have been given sensitivity training. He should have been beaten over the head with a copy of Smyth's Greek Grammar and humiliated till he learned to decline his mi-verbs.

Upcoming from Hopeless Books Uninc.

Soon as we get the cover all pretty, HOPELESS BOOKS UNINC. is ready to reprint Andy Nowicki's THE DOCTOR AND THE HERETIC (and Other Stories). These three novellini are strange, dark, and exotically theological; aside from Ligotti I think Andy's work with the evil heart of the universe is the most interesting I've read these days.

"The world began, she realized, when God wrote a love letter to his creation. Nothing has been the same since..."

More teaser material at: 

http://hopelessbooks.blogspot.com/2014/05/upcoming-andy-nowickis-doctor-and.html

Trying to deny the fact that you're a ridiculous creature...

... just makes you an even more ridiculous creature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBezIgA3ys


BONUS FEATURE: This is what I call "the sound of life."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLMMNZJOCvA

(When I hear the word "life" I usually imagine some small animal tugging at something and grunting.)

Here's a quandary into which I have thunk myself:

Starting from the antinatalist proposition that to inflict life on another human being is a cruel and unconscionable act*, it follows that the crueler and/or more careless a person is, the more children he is likely to produce. A person who voluntarily produces zero children is therefore less nasty than the mean.

Now. To be realistic—which is where we claim antinatalism comes from, yes?—there is ZERO likelihood that the species will ever go peacefully. (Short of social measures that would make people scream all kinds of bloody murder anyway.) I've heard antinatalists yellin' that our philosophy is going to save the world... no. I'm sorry. We may be right, but what does that matter? We're freaks. I don't mean that in the derogatory sense, I mean that in the sense that we don't happen very often. Most people are thoughtless and cruel. (Most of the time, when not making a conscious decision like this, I am too, out of instinct.)

Therefore, if people who are thoughtful enough to not breed keep on not doing so, and people who are thoughtless enough to keep poppin' 'em out continue to do as they are inclined, this will have a concrete effect on human evolution: if there's a genetic profile that leads one to susceptibility to antinatalist ideas, it will become scarcer and scarcer. The race will get crueler and more thoughtless. Life will be more swamped with unnecessary, human-created misery with each generation; if genocide or physical torture aren't constant, petty bureaucrats will be ten times as sadistic.

Therefore: Does the refusal of people who are inclined not to breed for moral reasons to buck their inclinations and reproduce their genetic stock in fact create more net suffering? I may pat myself on the back for keeping my unborn children safe where they belong, but I'm leaving the souls of my ilk in a position to be more and more nightmarishly outnumbered. So... maybe I should have a kid and then apologize to it? Or murder it if it's too unhappy? Can't come up with a good answer here, folks.

I'm afraid dysgenics is going to win. Even if I decided to let my own flesh and blood step into the meat grinder, on the average, getting people who are disinclined to inflict life to breed is no more realistic than the idea of getting people inclined to multiply mindlessly to knock it off. And although I agree in the abstract that overall suffering should be reduced, I could not stomach watching my own flesh and blood suffer through even a trial as mundane as junior high, especially knowing she'll be related to me, with all the nerdliness that entails—and knowing it was all my fault.

You too?

So, again, things are just going to get worse.

Sorry.

*If you're unfamiliar with this debate, Google "antinatalist."

Proselytizing by Post

Update: Well, I guess I should pay attention to things besides the title and the price when I buy books on Amazon... turns out this wasn't the work of any miserable Amazon wage slave at all. The outfit that was selling this through Amazon was called... wait for it... Homeschool777. Not that I'm against taking your kids out of the brain factory, but these guys are really living the stereotype: I'm pretty sure they sent me the wrong book on purpose, AND THEY REFUSED TO TAKE IT BACK OR GIVE ME A REFUND. Amazon kindly covered the funds for me, although I do have to hoof it to the UPS store to return it... I suspect they're going to just burn it.

Anyway, my Catholic upbringing has given me a lifelong allergy to this kind of humorless proselytizing... yeah, I've heard of Jesus, guys; thanks for stealing my money, I was really tired of it, but isn't there some kind of commandment about that? This reminds me of the family story about when my grandmother allegedly met some Jehovah's witnesses at the door with a shotgun. 

Original post:

Way to go, Amazon. Or is this just God's infamous sick sense of humor?


I ordered this (and the invoice proves it):

Instead, I got this:

Ooo, God is trying to tell me something. Through this smirking goober?

OK, sure. So what's the lesson? That spending two hours dicking around with Amazon returns and the post office will enrich my spirit?

I wonder which is true: Some miserable wage slave at Amazon is trying to amuse himself, or some deluded wage slave (and future inheritor of the Kingdom) is trying to save my soul? Ahh, it's probably just a dipshit.

Can everyone forget about race and welfare for ten seconds, jesus christ...

...and think for a second about how goddamned sexist our system in the U.S. is? Not to mention breederist, but unfortunately that's something a lot fewer people care about.

Let me back up a second for the benefit of my non-American friends out there. Wherever else you're from, I'm guessing your welfare system, if you have one, couldn't possibly be any more retarded than ours is, because I'm trying to think of a way it could be worse, but I can't. Multinational embezzlers paying no taxes while the infamous struggling middle class pays for the upkeep of the even worse-off peasants in order to keep them from troublesomely rioting...? Well, that's only the most obvious part of the retard package. Writers whose parents were rich to begin with are the only ones to benefit  from the only sort of support system this place has for artists...? Well, only art fags like me care about that. The biggest problem, and the one that most people don't seem to want to think about, is this:

Have you ever noticed how many more male panhandlers there are than female?

Gee, why is that? Have you ever been out of a job?

After what, two decades of dutifully paying into the system, I went back to school to get their bullshit degree to better my life, or at least not starve. Kind of a dumb move, I realize, but there was no other way to justify spending all that time learning Latin just so I could better appreciate Juvenal (I majored in French and Classics, exactly the kind of majors you get when you're used to living in virtuous poverty, snarf snarf). When I graduated, it was during the trough of the Even Better Depression, and even the employers who did respond to my applications wanted to know what the hell I had been doing for the past couple of years. Not working in our industry? A good enough excuse to eliminate you from our copious, copious pile of hopefuls.

Fair enough, and even in the best of times an efficient capitalist system depends on having unemployed workers hanging around to be deployed rapidly with no screwing around or luring them out of a steady job; this is why we're supposed to have a social safety net, so said workers don't starve to death or riot while they're waiting for deployment. Trouble is, in the United States, you are never eligible for welfare unless you have dependent children. And since custody almost always goes to the women, guess who almost never gets to take out of the system they've been paying into all their lives when it's their turn to be down on their luck?

Don't worry, male counterparts, I am not trying to white knight (ess?) for you. I'm just exercising my privilege of saying what you can't say without being called names; also, as a female who is physically capable of whorishly milking the system by puking souls onto this dungheap but who refuses to, I'm a bit angry on my on own behalf, since virtue, as usual, continues to be punished.

Fuck you and your doomed little hostages, my lady. Granted, nobody in their right mind wants to work, especially when automated production can get us nearly everything we need to survive while requiring perhaps one man-hour of maintenance per week from every adult. Most people's jobs are bullshit and useless. But now that they've been knit into a system that doesn't seem willing to disappear any time soon—"the machines are taking over" isn't a common sci-fi trope for no reason—those of us who feed the machines should at least be able to reap what we've planted when we come to hard times of our own. And yet even the social "safety net" is nightmarishly unjust. Why do I still feel surprised and outraged? What a ridiculous creature one is.