Month: January 2011

According to Anton LaVey, worship of a Deity that we do not “know” exists is foolish, and we should do what we believe is right, according to our own beliefs, and love those that deserve our love, hate those that deserve our hate, etc…

What is the revelation here?

I mean…I could argue about the existence or non-existence of God, but regardless of that, where is Anton’s great wisdom?

Or, to put it more succinctly, paraphrasing Benito Mussolini’s description of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ –

“Little more than commonplace cliches…”

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

8/6/13: Edit: Title should have “Dumb” before the word “Philosophy”.  Thank you.

Or does the surest proof of fate exist in the fact that almost everyone who becomes famous by using their intelligence, creativity, honesty, (dare I say) Humanity, and/or vitriolic rage to succeed in the “Entertainment” industry inevitably moves to either New York City or Los Angeles, whereupon they proceed to become inevitably more decadent and inevitably much, much less funny?

I mean, you can’t parody decadence, corporate greed, pretension, thuggery, and/or apathy if…you are them.

I watch MST3K and half the time I think “Wow, that was funny”…the other half I think “Wow, that was predictable in its unpredictability and I could do so much better”.

I mean, Monty Python’s Flying Circus (the ORIGINAL “Show about nothing that was really something”) was absolutely brilliant until they STOPPED CARING.

People can tell.

At least, intelligent ones can.

And I don’t want sheep to like me.

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

Many people today argue that the “glorification” of violence is resulting in more violent episodes.

Many people previously had argued that the “sanitization” of violence was resulting in more violent episodes.

The fact is, people have always been violent, and always will be.

Noone comes out of a Disney movie and starts killing people unless they’re prone to doing it in the first place.

Likewise, attempts to blame films for violent incidents are ridiculous…

Sam Peckinpah was trying to horrify his audiences with his graphic depiction of violence, not have them cheer.

Clint Eastwood was trying to shock his audiences with the gritty, harsh, “hero-less” Anti-Western ‘Unforgiven’.

And how successful were they?

About as successful as George A. Romero has been.

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

“He wants you on his side. Next to me, he wants you.”

“And you want me to condone this reign of terror? To swear allegiance to this monstrous king of yours? To kill my own soul and all within reach? Well, I won’t, Anderson. I’ll fight it ’til the last breath in my body. And I’ll fight you, too, because you’re part of it – the worst part.

Because you belong to a living race, not a dying one. This is your land, your world. Your hands are human but your mind is enemy. You’re a traitor, Anderson. The greatest traitor of all time. And you know why? Because you’re not betraying part of mankind – you’re betraying all of it.”
– It Conquered The World

AKA: Back when Roger Corman gave a sh1t about more than schlock-money.  Was it all that much better quality-wise?  No.  But at least he was trying.

SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE…

Who would I rather face, a zombie or a vampire?

Well, conventional logic and popular conception would suggest that a zombie would be easier to fight.

However, there is one great disadvantage to facing the zombie, that is also the great advantage in facing the zombie.

That is to say, a zombie is beyond reason.

Being a creature of pure instinct, it is incredibly stupid.  Slow, dim, able to use only the most basic objects, no tact, no tactics, no guile, physically weak, extremely flammable, etc etc etc…

However, these innate weaknesses mask a deeper innate strength, if you care to delve deeper into this nonsense…I mean conjecture.

A vampire is basically a glorified human being.  Incredible power breeds incredible ego, and so in this area the zombie wins. 

A zombie has no ego.  It has no pride, no remorse, no emotion, no sympathy, no discrimination, it isn’t “good” or “bad”, you can’t threaten it, persuade it, beg it, bribe it…it’s like trying to reason with a mosquito. 

And therein lies the problem.  Only the rarest of human beings (or, haha, vampires) are COMPLETELY beyond reasoning.  Having no “weaknesses”, no vulnerabilities, no vanity, etc. etc…

So, the next time you have to choose between a zombie and a vampire, at least give it some thought.  Remember, if you bow before a vampire and beg it, it may allow you to live.  A zombie will just eat you.

Thus ends this unbelievably silly post.  If anyone takes this seriously enough to argue about it, well…you’re probably a vampire.  OH!

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

“It’s almost like he’s DARING us to do something…”

“His favorite books include such distopian classics such as “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” and “Fahrenheit 451,” and he was interested in mind control and creating a new form of currency. These are just of a few of the online clues left behind…” – Sharon Weinberger

To link anti-fascist, anti-repression, pro-education works of art like ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘Fahrenheit 451’ with mind control and creating new currency and pretending these wonderful books IN ANY WAY condone, pretend to condone, endorse, support, or are “clues” as to a DISGUSTING MASSACRE OF INNOCENT PEOPLE is beyond irresponsible.  It is reprehensible trash.  Sharon, why don’t you just list his race and “he was male” as other “relevant” facts as “clues” to him being a cold-blooded murderer?  And you call yourself a journalist.

Disgusting.

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

Previously I had surmised that the problems of Humanity lay in certain set doctrines, that one may be higher than another. 

Certainly there are ideologies that are more prone to exploitation and corruption than others, but the inherent problem with any belief system is that it must be followed by Humans.

The rational and/or spiritual mind can conceive of Good and Noble things, but those that are willing to pursue such ideals, even in the basest form, are rare, and seem to be more rare now than they have ever been.

To say that we are evolving is simply to overlook facts.

Humanity is evolving at a rapid rate intellectually and physically, but emotionally and morally we are, if anything, devolving.

Necessity and hardship tend to breed character, and with life becoming increasingly easier for the vast majority of people, character becomes unnecessary.

Long lifespans give us less reason to act in a decisive fashion, more resources allow us to become decadent and wasteful.

When life does not impose moral character upon us, it is that much more imperative that we act in a moral fashion of our own accord, but this is increasingly more difficult as the moral person today is considered quaint and out of touch.

-Puppy >.< Grrr…