Archive for August, 2005

Horrors

Michael Landon’s first movie was called “I Was a Teenage Werewolf.”

It was made when I was just entering my teens. There was a massive spate of horror movies then, all publicized by posters featuring beautiful women being attacked by monsters or maniacs.

There was a scene in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf” where a voluptuous tennage girl in a tight gym outfit was being attacked by Michael Landon as the werewolf. I must have seen that scene repeated a dozen times on television. Every time there was a discussion of violence in the movies or movies in general or any other excuse, that scene was repeated.

There was a movie called “The Woman Eater.” It showed a plant to whom women were fed as a sacrifice.

I seldom say anything complimentary about carnivorous plants, but I must say this one had very specific tastes for a vegetable. The only women it ate were young, spectacularly beautiful starlets.

In the drive-in theaters many girls would scream at the evil monster and grab their boyfriends.

A scream and a grab is usually a bother. But the boyfriends tolerated it very well.

“The Woman Eater” was a box office smash, but they didn’t make a sequel called “The Old Man Eater.” I never understood why that was.

But now to the point: this was the 1950s, remember. The rape rate was miniscule compared to today. The murder rate was miniscule compared to today.

If you think violence is caused by movies, you really need to take a look at the billboards from that day

Nor was this new.

The main advertisement for Dracula about 1931 was a huge color picture of the vampire drinking the blood of a woman whose lovely leg was exposed. It was “sex and violence” incarnate. That picture was infinitely sexier than any porn movie today that shows women naked.

In the 1930s King Kong advertisements featured the huge beast holding a squirming, screaming Faye Wray in his hand. Half the audience was female.

King Kong was made in the middle of the Depression. If poverty or violent movies caused crime, the crime rate in the 1930s would have been astronomical.

It wasn’t.

Sometimes the 1930-1960 period is referred to as “an age of innocence.” In the movies, it was anything but. People shot each other without any hesitation or moral reflection. James Cagney started as a song-and-dance man, but he made his fame by killing people in droves.

If you attacked a woman on the street, a man in the 1930s would not have hesitated to shoot you down in cold blood. Can you imagine a man doing that today?

Thay may have had something to do with the fact that women were not so wantonly attacked back then.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Reply to H.S.

H.S. disagrees with evolution.

Suits me. The last thing I want is a bunch of commenters who agree with me on everything.

But, as you will see, what bothered me was not the disagreement, but something far more critical.

She misused the term “politically correct.”

Deal with the POINT. But NEVER use “politically correct” as a throwaway expression.

In this war, that is a terrible misstep. And this IS a war.

Misusing that word is more important than anything relating to evolution. It aids the enemy enormously.

Here is the exchange: HS begins by quoting me:

Whales are the only animal for which we have a complete fossil record of its evolution from one species to another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/redesign.shtml
Whales were originally a furry hooved carnivore, no more at home in the water than a tiger. But the shoreline is where the food is. While all other hooved carnivores died out this one apparently ate fish that washedup, then began to go after them in the water.

HS REPLIES:

If adherents to the alternate religion of PC need for whales to have been furry hooved carnivores, you will have a thousand professors line up and swear that they did.

There is less than no scientific fact to back up the article and statements above.

Here is my reply. Bob’s Blog is not a gentle place:

Why does PC need evolution?

Evolution is the antithesis of equality and universality.

I am genuinely interested in your answer to this, since it fits into the kind of thinking I am trying to inculcate.

Evolution is a bone of contention between atheistic forms of wordism and Christian forms of wordism. Karl Marx hated religion so he tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, and Darwin refused. Marx felt he had an ally against wordist Christianity, which is based on the Old Testament.

But in terms of Bob’s Blog, a fight between two forms of wordism is not important.

Professors rue the day they ever coined the term “political correctness.” It gave a name to their whole campaign of terrorizing everybody who used the wrong words.

Since then they have backpedaled desperately. They say the term political correctness was just a joke. They use it on talk shows to mean saying the right things about religion.

Anything to divert people from the real and limited meaning of the term political correctness. For once their ploys have NOT worked. For once the public knows exactly what the term political correctness means and it is the only word to describe this phenomenon.

Conservatives who use political correctness for anything they don’t approve of help the professors enormously.

If evolution is necessary to political correctness I would certainly agree that a thousand professors would line up to support it before midnight tonight. But I have NEVER heard evolution mentioned as a motivation for ANY human action in ANY social science class. Social science, political correctness, avoids any discussion of heredity whatsoever.

I repeat, what is it about evolution that is politically correct?

Professors hate Old Testament wordism, so they use evolution against it. But that is a battle between two forms of wordism.

When it comes to environment versus heredity, professors avoid evolution like the plague.

And I repeat, if you expand the term politically correct to include anything you do not agree with, you are aiding the enemy.

You may be right on your opinions and facts. But NEVER aid the enemy by your terminology.

Please note that everything I have said here has to do with political strategy, not evolution.

Words are our weapon here. Don’t use them against our own side.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

5 Comments

“Nigger” Is NOT a Southern Word

I was listening to Deac, a very, very black man, while we were working the transfer on the brick plant.

“Deac” was a preacher. That’s why we called him Deacon. We gave his tiny church a bell.

Deac weighed about 120. But that huge iron transfer with a load of wet bricks was something my brother and I both could not move. Deacon could. He could move he whole thing and talk at the same time.

He was talking about “niggahs.” He kept correcting himself by saying “colored people.”

The reason Deacon said “niggahs” was because it was easier for him, for me, for my brother, for everybody in the Deep South. Both “Negro” and “nigger” have hard “r’s” and for a Southern a hard “r” does not come naturally.

Which is why a Southerner who was trying to be as polite as possible without bowing to Yankee pressure would say “Nigrah.” Any Southerner who said Knee-Grow was being obviously unnatural in an attempt to get Yankee approval. Every Southerner could tell that.

Hard consonants and hard vowels simply did not fit in with our speech pattern.

I was endlessly grateful to Stokeley Carmichel, founder of the Black Panthers, when he pointed out that black people have a problem with that ridiculous word KneeGrow, too, and from that moment on it would be “black.”

The civil righters were interested in humiliating Southerners. How blacks spoke bothered them and their paid Negro Leaders not in the least.

For a Southerner, the word “nigger” is not as totally absurd as the word KneeGrow, but the hard “r” is not natural to us.

Of course, the word negro is a Spanish word which means black. It is pronounced nay-gro, with the rolled r. English is the only language which does not roll its r. Nay-gro would be very easy for a Southerner to say is he could roll the r.

The word naygro was the only term known for blacks when the first black people arrived in Jamestown in 1619. John Smith wrote in his diary, “Twenty niggurs arrived today.” So apparently that was the way he pronounced it.

The first twenty blacks to arrive in Jamestown were not slaves. They were indentured. Slavery was legalized in Massachusetts before it was legalized in Virginia. Those twenty blacks arrived in America over a year before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

The first Virginia Legislature, the Virginia House of Burgesses, was also elected in Jamestown in 1619.

America was founded at Plymouth Rock, you know.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

Humans May Have Evolved on the Beach

Whales are the only animal for which we have a complete fossil record of its evolution from one species to another.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/redesign.shtml

Whales were originally a furry hooved carnivore, no more at home in the water than a tiger. But the shorelineis where the food is. While all other hooved carnivores died out this one apparently ate fish that washedup, then began to go after them in the water.

Ambulocetus, the “walking whale,” looked like a crocodile with fur. That is what the original hooved carnivore evolved into. There are thousands of skeletons of these animals that link them directly to whales. It must have mated and had its offsrping on land and it only swam in fresh water.

Then the ambulacaetus took several evolutionary steps. It adapted to salt water, it adapted to mating and having its offspring on land, and it grew a lot.

Actually later seagoing whales still had their two legs that were useless for anything but holding on while mating. And they all remained hunters long after they became ocean beings.

Eating krill came later, much later.

I have talked about the people who in America long before the Indians. The Indians, of course, killed them and took their lands. My theory of why their travel left few traces is not only time, but also because they probably followed the coastline. A people used to foraging the sea would not care so much about WHICH beach they were traveling across.

The one thing that is always changing historically is the coast. There are towns in England that were there in historical times and are now under sea. They found the dead at Pompeii after they figured out where the seacoast was in 69 BC and looked there for the people who were waiting for ships.

Earlier people had searched the present coaswt because they didn’t know it had changed, even though St. Augustine’s episcopal sea at Hippo is long since under water.

There is enormous evidence that man made a partial transition to sea life. Even the hairs on our backs are positioned for better swimming. Our lack of hair in general is an adaptation to sea life.

There is a very long list of things man has that are obvious adaptations to water.

Also, dolphins have a huge brain, bigger than ours. They too were once furry animals.

We need to look at ancient, very ancient shorelines to find this critical step in our own evolution. Science only accepted continental drift in my lifetime, so we are very backward in that respect.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Want to be Patronized? Go Elsewhere

Recently a person wrote me a note approving of my comments.

IN MY OPINION, he made one fatal error.

He said, “Political Correctness is a religion, or at least a set of rigid beliefs.”

I wrote him and then I wrote a piece in this blog about how, in trying to be sophisticated, he had justified the whole academic priesthood.

No, I said, Political Correctness is not “a rigid system of beliefs” as distinct from a religion. Political Correctness is a RELIGION.

The whole excuse for the professor-priesthood is that it is not a religion, but a rigid set of beliefs. The Constitution does not outlaw the teaching of “a rigid system of beliefs” or political bias. It absolutely forbids the establishment of a RELIGION.

So I invited this writer, who had been praising me to the skies, to explain to me the difference between a religion and what he called “a rigid system of beliefs.”

Remember, this is the distinction the enire professor-priesthood survives on.

He never wrote me again. He was offended that a letter of praise should be answered with such vicious criticism.

Don was one of my best commenters. He was also a great admirer of mine. I have an ego like anybody else and his praise made me feel good.

But then I jumped all over Don for something he said that, IN MY OPINION, was dead wrong.

He never wrote me again.

What really bothered me about this was that the former commenter and especially Don had long passed the Jehovah Bit. The Old Testament Jehovah, like other pagan gods, wants people to mindlessly tell them how wonderul they are.

There was nothing mindless about Don or the other commenter I raised hell about.

The guys I turned off had actually read what I said and understood it perfectly. They had gone ahead with what I said and made it the basis of further thinking. They had every right to expect a little diplomacy from me.

But this is Bob’s Blog.

There is no diplomacy here.

You use pseudonyms, so there is no reason for you to be embarrassed. I will jump all over you and you have every right to jump all over me.

If you are a mindless moron like “Sue” I will say so. I only replied to “Sue” because she was a perfect example of standard and packaged mindlessness.

I said so.

You I reply to because you are worth it and you can take it. If you piss me off, I will act pissed off.

If you are, IN MY OPINION, dead wrong on a point, I will tell you so, no holds barred. I expect you, as a thinking person, to look at what I say and deal with it.

This is Bob’s Blog.

There is no diplomacy here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments