Resurrecting this blog because the bathroom mirror can’t save, edit, or talk back.



The Three Princples of The Modern Man

I was going to attempt to write a poem called “The Man.”  It would portray the proverbial “Man” as a shadow of his former Commie killing, hippy crushing self.  He would be an aged, fat, emasculated middle manager, who’s appearance of dominance is a facade meant to justify various justice crusaders and their march toward “equality” (or power for those whom manifested voice of “the oppressed”)  He goes along with it because he gets a big man cave, with all kinds of toys, and all the video games he can play and internet porn he can watch, with no responsibility or worrying of actually controlling and dominating society.

But it turns out the NY Times has already done my job for me.  Specifically by some guy named Brian Lombardi, in his article 27 Ways to Be a Modern Man.  Google does not turn up much about him, other than the fact he wrote this article.  The article itself does gives some clues though: “Brian Lombardi lives in DeKalb, Ill., with his wife, Linda, and their three children.”  I’m guessing he is involved in academia, since if you live in Dekalb, you either work at the local university or in the corn fields.  And  Only a male who works in academia could come up with such a pathetic, navel gazing list.  Only the “Modern Man” could come up with such an impotent, effeminate, and castrated view of masculinity and revel in it.  So I guess it does succeed in its stated goal.

The article begins with: “Being a modern man today is no different than it was a century ago. It’s all about adhering to principle. Sure, fashion, technology and architecture change over time, as do standards of etiquette, not to mention ways of carrying oneself in the public sphere. But the modern man will take the bits from the past that strike him as relevant and blend them with the stuff of today.”  The list doesn’t actually state what those principles are, the reasons for inclusions, or what is old fashion and what is new.  Instead Lombardi seems to just use little foibles of his life to illustrate those principles without actually stating them.  We can infer the principles of Modern Man from his 27 points.

1. Consumption, Possessions, and the Way Modern Man Consume Defines Modern Man and His Relationships

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

2. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out.

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.

13. The modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.

23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time).

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.

3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will

It’s interesting to note how point 25 completely contradicts point 16: “The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.”  This is clearly a fantasy, unless he imagines himself going into a suicide mission.

2. Females are Above The Modern Man and Boys

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.

21. The modern man doesn’t scold his daughter when she sneezes while eating an apple doughnut, even if the pieces fly everywhere.

While I’m sure having a daughter is a wonderful thing with its own unique challenges, the fact he seems to castigates sons is disturbing.  Why not put “child” in place of “daughter?”  Why should it only be a female heir that makes you more complete?  If you want to approach it from a gender polarity, needing a yin to your yang,  your feminine compliment should be your wife, not your offspring (unless you write for Salon of course).

3. Modern Man  Shallowly Mimics His Perceptions of  Men of The Past (Largely Bounded by Principle 1)

2. The modern man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk. He acts as if everything is going swimmingly until it is.

3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus.

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.

5. The modern man won’t blow 10 minutes of his life looking for the best parking spot. He finds a reasonable one and puts his car between the lines.

8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.

11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will.

14. The modern man still jots down his grocery list on a piece of scratch paper. The market is no place for his face to be buried in the phone.

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords.

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.

22. The modern man still ambles half-naked down his driveway each morning to scoop up a crisp newspaper.

This is what he considers bits of the past that are relevant and worth blending, small little gestures to “Leave it to Beaver” and “Tool Time.”

I want you to consider how many “men” adhere to these principles.  The author is of a definite strain of SWPL family man, but you find “men” of all kinds defining themselves by their knowledge of craft beer and how benevolent they are to their wives.  I may not be the paragon of manilness with my office work sculpted body and natural timidness, but I can  tell you if your looking for guidance on the nature of masculinity, Jack Donovan’s work is the best way to go.

Neo-Reaction and Julius Evola

I’m surprised by the people who claim to look up to Evola, especially amongst neo-reactionaries. At first old Julius seems like the perfect fit for any movement with “reactionary” in the title. He wrote against every form of government in power during his life (communism, fascism and democracy) and was against anything short of absolute monarchy. Plus his dry, stuffy writing style seems to be what most neo-reactionaries aim for in their own writings.

The thing is though, most neo-reactionaries have their roots in Moldbug and his Silicon Valley clique of libertarians and trans-humanists. The roots of neo-reaction seem to be more Rothbard than Caryle. That is not to say neo-reactionaries haven’t grown into their monarchism, but it owes more to “Democracy: The God That Failed” than it does to “Leviathan” because without the first, they would not be taking the second as seriously.

Another thing that probably appeals to reactionaries is the fact Evola approaches things like an engineer.  He was formally trained as an engineer, but abandoned his education because he didn’t want to be another lame culture-less member of the bourgeoisie.  I haven’t read his books that deal solely with politics, but the reviews say he takes apart different systems of government like you would an engine.  So it is easy to see why a movement founded by Silicon Valley techies would be drawn to someone who writes like he’s publishing a technical manual.

But Evola had some very interesting a priories that would make most neo-reactionaries very uncomfortable, and this is a movement that challenges democracy and racial equality.  Evola was primarily a writer on the occult and esoteric.  If you bother to give Evola a serious read though, you’ll realize “The Aristocrat of the Soul” is not someone who develops server software and reads archaic political tracts, but someone who does silly little ritual dances, messes around with psychedelics, and actually takes Crowley somewhat seriously.  Actually, Evola’s dry and direct writing is very refreshing for any acolyte, since you have to go though a mountain of woo-woo witches and people hawking healing crystals at you to find someone like Evola, someone who doesn’t bullshit around or uses flowery words.  He’s the only author to describe what “the elements” were actually suppose to be clearly in his book on Alchemy.

Most neo-reactionaries I’ve come across are either atheist, catholic, or some form of mainline protestant, and all have a very down-to-earth view of things.  Evola’s view of the world is not down to earth at all, and is in a place beyond time and space.  I’m surprised no one brings up the Hyperborean Arctic, even just for trolling.  It plays a big role in Evola’s world view, attributing world history as a struggle between masculine Hyperborean virtues verses effeminate occult forces rooted in a decadent Atlantic civilization.  This makes me think a lot of people have not actually read Evola, and just like the image of him with his monocle looking aristocratic and elitist.  I feel Hyperborea lurks in right-wing circles like Xenu does for Scientology.  I know Richard Spencer has a “Hyperborean Cicle” in his donation plans at Radix, and the publishing house “Arktos” takes its name from polar lore.  I’m neutral on the whole thing honestly, as I’m not an expert in anthropology, and I’ve come to believe some crazy stuff I though never possible, though I do like to fantasize about an arctic home while listening to some OPN.

So let this be a warning to any neo-reactionaries wanting to read though the works of The Sicilian Baron, you’ll find some crazy shit that will be too much for your average modern monarchist.  And let this be an encouraging note to people reading though Evola for esoteric knowledge: he is a spring of knowledge, clearly stated, with only a bit of a snobbish tone.  Even if his politics are a turn off for you, his books should have a spot on your book shelf alongside Waite, Bardon, and Regardie.

Three Limericks About a Sailor

There once was a sailor, who sailed all the seven seas
He enjoyed a good ocean breeze
But he loved women more
and he was well away from shore
So he was forced to make ol’ fashion hand cheese.

Later our hero reaches shore, with the mad lust of ten titans
Yet he lacked the pride of a lions
He did something most regret
Something the Japanese do best
He harpooned a wild wailing leviathan

Many years later, our sailor is now a land lover
Turns out he turned the blubber beast into a mother
Either marriage or child support
He chose a ring instead of fighting in court
He now wishes he was satisfied making his private sea butter.

Some Thoughts on the Men’s Rights Movement

These are just some general observations surrounding the growing Men’s Right Movement (MRM), Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), and the grudge match they have with feminist.

First, its very evident that the MRM is a direct decedent of feminism. Warren Farrell, a core member of the MRM, was once a long time and respected feminist.  That was until he brought up inequalities involving men, and was forever banished.  He seriously thought feminism was a co-ed dorm, when it has always been a sorority.   If feminism had just made even a slight gesture that there are inequalities that affect men, the MRM would not even exist, and Paul Elam would be getting published in “Ms.”  I could even picture there being a regular column titled “Thoughts from the Man Cave”, or “Mansplaining Zone” or some other title that reeks that particularly cutesy, unbearable bobo humour.  They could have even kept around the Patriarchy gibberish, since as all Rad-Fems like to say “The Patriarchy hurts men as well.”

Second, the way feminist handle the MRA shows that while they hold a lot of control, they are not very good at using that power against enemies.  If I were a feminist, I’d try to co-op the whole thing and use it as a tool to further castrate men and further other agendas.  “See, why can’t men cry?” “Men can be weak as well!” “People ignore the plight of males because of those nasty gender roles.” All you really need to do to bring the MRM to a heel is to give them some divorce reform (making sure the state and technocrats can tamper even more in the family all along the way). Instead, feminist vitriolically attacking the MRM gives MRAs a ton of free press.  These attacks are not limited to academic journals that the general public never reads, they’re out in the open mainstream media.  There was even a SNL sketch that aired nationally.

Just skip though the guy’s commentary if it annoys you. 

And before you say they’re too big to ignore, “A Voice for Men” tried doing a march on Washington and couldn’t get enough people.  Who do you know personally who would call themselves an MRA, or even sympathetic?  Unless you yourself are an MRA, probably none.  This is the converse of the Streisand effect, but it leads to the same results. Also when feminist protest MRM events, they look absolutely insane.

The Fire Alarm:  Good for silencing enemies and getting out of a midterm exam.

This is what a feminist looks like

But looking (or should I say being) insane has always been a problem for feminist and feminism.

Third, I’m not a MRA nor a supporter besides giving them an ear once in awhile.  As I’ve already stated, it’s ultimately the beaten bastard son of feminism. In fact, I think a large take off the the MRM would be a horrible thing for most men and masculinity.  It is a movement that highlights impotence of modern men, that seeks to turn the male sex into a victim class, with all the goodies that come along with it (political attention, being able to take the moral high ground, ect.)  I’d rather have my agency than government handouts any day.  In order to be in a designated victim group, it means sacrificing agency in some form.  You could argue that the MRM is seeking to expand my agency, but that is not what they are about.  They’re about weeping to Mommy Nanny State for more allowance money and an extended bedtime. It could be that their actions will bring about an expansion of my agency in some areas, but it will come at a steeper cost: agency is also dependent on the mental and emotional.

You can have all the freedom in the world, but if your will is weak and you believe yourself to be helpless, you will only hold agency in name only, and your actions will be that of a slave.  This is the sacrifice groups make when joining The Rainbow Brigade: you admit weakness and helplessness, forever branded a victim, no matter circumstances.  You could be a black billionaire, titan of industry,  a success in every aspect, but you will always have to play the role of a sad little red lipped sambo, forever crushed by the invisible hand of white supremacy.  If you ever denied this, or said that black people need to ignore the past and need build themselves up with their own hands, you will get branded as an uncle tom, race traitor, and the white liberals whom used to hold you up will drop you like dog shit, and even shoot snide remarks at you.  I do not want this, and consider being forever barred from The Rainbow Brigade truly a privilege.

As for feminism, if you couldn’t tell from the tone of this article, I hold an even lower opinion of.  The idea of gender equality is absolutely absurd.  I can accept seeking to keep the law gender neural as possible, but even having a perfectly equal legal code is impossible.  The fact abortion is an issue proves this.  I believe gender is not a construct, but something ingrained into existence itself, much like math is.  The sexes are a manifestation of this into existence, and while it manifest differently in various creatures, and even people, it is a reality.  Males are superior in somethings to females, women excel men in others.  A woman maybe better than most men in a male dominated field, but women plural is not, and we shouldn’t base our society on the delusion that it is achievable.  You just end up mutilating the male and female psyche and spirit in trying to make us equal.  We don’t need to force dresses on tom boys, but trying to force chess on girls that are not interested is more damning, because you make misfits of 80% of women.  Femininity and Masculinity are sacred and weaved into nature, and when you move against the divine and nature itself, you’re fighting an uphill battle up a mountain with no summit.

I don’t need to be a feminist to say cutting off woman’s noses or clitoris is wrong, or that rape is one of the worst things you can do just short of murder, or that we should celebrate the accomplishments of women.  If anything we should celebrate femininity itself, real femininity, not the awful contorted abstractions that leftist come up with.  There is a war on women, and its not being fought by chicken sandwich chains or Evangelicals, but those who think because they can fill their big brains with bad information and ideas, they need to take a scalpel to the mind of millions of girls across this country, and contaminate them with their unholy doctrines.

Ramblings on Racical Conflict, Inter-race Sexuality, Class Conciousness, and Identity

You know we’re in interesting times when two news stories that cross my radar, can respond to two news stories with “In a row?”

First one coming out a Spanish island. A British girl performed oral sex on 24 men in a night club, with the promise of a free “Holiday.” The “Holiday” was a kind of drink. Yeah, that old gag.

Then we have a story that is even more over the top than that, with half the dick count. In short, guy’s girl gets gangbanged by twelve black guys, with blatant photo and video evidence, and then forgives her.  Now twelve guys, with your girl, at the same time is enough to cause a mental breakdown. But when you bring the the racial aspect, it just sets off something deep inside at lot of guy’s lizard brain. What’s funny is commenters disturbed by the race, overlook the fact this guy is obviously Hispanic.  And judging from his handle “ballnjay”, plus the constant use of the word “nigga”, this is not the tale of an innocent straight A’s beta getting cuckolded. I would guess the girl is possibly a heavily Spanish blood mezito as well. Still, the pictures of black teens proudly grabbing onto a light skinned girl, sends many guy’s primal instincts into overdrive.

Even in our PC culture, mentioning that you got cheated on by a black guy will illicit definite “owhhhoooo”s from men. I even remember in the comic-book version of “Kick Ass”, when the main character’s love starts showing interest in another guy, the hero describes him as “the new black kid from Jersey.” I never finished the story arch, but a friend of mine told me that in the end, she finds out he was watching her though her bedroom window, and has her black boyfriend beat him up. One of the obvious running themes of “Kick Ass” is humiliation, so its interesting to note the writers made race a specific aspect to her boyfriend.

What’s interesting is if you take this scenario, and sub in different races: 12 Asians, 12 East Indians, 12 Mexicans, or 12 Martians. Somehow, twelve East Asians having their way with your precious flower feels a lot less humiliating. Even twelve mestizos seems to calm the lizard brain. But, I’m going to go out on a limb and say if you’re British, 12 Pakistanis is about equal to blacks in the shade of red you’ll see.

It is a bit weird there exist this paranoia that black men are going to steal all our white wimminz, and then take control, inflicting an eye for an eye equal to hundreds of years of oppression upon the white race.  I remember Louie C.K. making a whole routine of it, saying how someday they’ll rise up with no mercy, but he’ll be long dead and got to enjoy all the benefits of  what leftists call “white privilege.”  Actually, it perfectly sums up boomer attitudes: throwing your own the the sharks, not making an attempt to fix any actual problems, while living large on debt fulled luxuriously.  Course the idea of black getting to intact a day of retribution is just as much a fantasy as “The Day of the Rope” white supremacist hold to.  The sad truth is blacks have very little power outside what is gifted to them by whites, that could be revoked very quickly.  I’ve always said if blacks voted 98% Republican, lefty political cartoons would look like something penned by A. Wytt Mann.  The best they have as a group is they’ll riot and loot like they’re doing in Missouri.

White flight and gentrification has limited the effect of their one real bargaining chip.  Ironically enough, the anti-racist upper class whites flocking to Ferguson may actually be the death nail to the community.  I heard they were staging Gay Pride rallies in support of Brown (something I’m sure the young black kid would love to have in their memory).  If these whites decide to set up shop, they’ll cause rents and property prices to rise, while not bringing in any actual industry or opportunity, setting in motion the wheels of gentrification.  And I suspect it will be very quick, as most the property owners in the area probably are not black, and will be more than eager to throwout their current weave raiding tenants for sedate hipsters with deep trust funds.  I can already picture a Hindu convince store owners trying to sweet talk some white protestors, coming in for a pack of American Spirits, to take up residence in a little rental house he owns in town.  Between the unconscious covert actions of the bourgeoisie to colonize black areas, and the overt hostility Hispanics seem to show them, the future of black America looks bleaker than ever.  Native Americans at least have protected reservations that they get to call the shots in, a better power in my opinion that being able to get any white person who says “nigger” fired.

So while I hold no deep fear of black people, I’ll confess it triggers me a bit seeing black guys grabbing a light skinned women, and showing her off as a prize.  But not a lot. Like I said earlier, our recently wronged hero is a wannabe thug, and just proved to be a total failure at that. So, its not this girl, while very pretty, had high standards to begin with. What I see is a girl cheating on her wankster boyfriend, with twelve different more convincing wanksters. The thing is, I don’t know if this guy had been white, or at least not a shit-bag, if it would have made more of an impact.

My personal experience says no, and the reason is due to something Alain de Benoist believes and I realized when I was in high school. The nature of identity is multilayer and multifaceted.

When I moved to an area where white women with black men was more common, it did catch my attention, not in an aggressive way, but because it was so rare where I grew up. While I grew up in a “vibrant” and “multicultural community”, I never saw whites with blacks very often. In the new town I was living in, it was not uncommon to see a white wife and black husband at the grocery store, arguing what kind of frozen pizza to get. They seemed like typical decent working class people, so it never bothered me. The only time it did bother me, was when I saw two black teenagers with a white girl down town, and one of them was pulling at her shirt, saying “aye let me see dem titties”, and she just giggled, playfully saying “nooo~.” That got to me, yet a white women pushing a baby carriage with her black partner never did. It could have been the rudeness, or the display of welfare class behaviour.

See, my home town that was oh so rich in ethnic and cultural diversity, that rich whites claim to envy but never get around to enjoying, was not in the inner cities. It had its seedier sides, and gated communities (usually on the outskirts, in just the right spots to be in a different school district), but overall it was a town of working class people. The funny thing about being in an actually diverse area, is it does make you “racially conscious”, but we pale faces had outlets. I remember a friend of mine in High School saying the proverbial “There’s a black club, a Mexican club, an Asian club, how come there is no white club?” I told him “There is, its called German Club.” I never felt, or had much racial hostility directed at me, save for a bit of friendly teasing. I never remembered being shamed too much for being white in school either (In fact, the biggest shaming lesson I remember was over the Mormons).

The dwellings on identity I had back then had much more to do with pep rallies. My hometown had two different High Schools, and naturally we were rivals. I always though “Man, if my family just lived on the other side of town, I’d be barking for the other team.” I thought more about the age old argument against nationalism, that you only exist in a particular culture or nation by accident not of your own doing, so its foolish to have pride in it.  Reading about different countries and the traits they have, especially in regard to the kind of philosophers they produce, brought me around to the idea that we carry within us a national, regional, class, religious, and ethnic characteristics.  They maybe obvious like dress and what spices you use in your foods, or they can be subtle, like how you think and perceive time.

My identity is rooted strongly in my home town.  I’ve started writing poetry and it comes up a lot.  I’ve been wanting my first tattoo to be a logo of an old company that was based there to be branded across my chest, right next to my heart.  Course I now live 2000 miles away on the coast.  Yet I find myself in cities and areas that mirror its spirit.  I could live in more upscale areas with some budgeting, or poor areas dominated by whites, but I always find myself coming back to those much evangelized diverse communities.  Gritty, dirty, filled with people who’s lives are spent close to the grind stone.  These places I call home, and those people who live their are apart of my unconscious conception of a folk, possibly against my better judgement or maybe those old, musty Marxist were right all along.  But unfortunately for them, they are by and large apart of the ruling class now a days.  And while they have fantasies of a proletariat uprising in cushy academic offices, I can tell you those egg headed intellectuals will not like the results of a real working class revolution.

Actually Imagining “Imagine”

“Imagine” by John Lennon is one of the most beloved songs ever composed, an ode to the ideals peace and human brotherhood.  From a purely song writing standpoint, it is the perfect combination of simplicity, sentimentality, and a censer plea for world peace.  The music has a light, quiet, dreamy feel that sets the backdrop for the lyrics.  The magic of comes from the lyrics, that actively engage you to imagine John Lennon’s dream utopia we’re all expected to agree is wonderful, beautiful, and at the very at least accept as an ideal to strive for.  “A more perfect union” in many people’s minds equals “Imagine all the people living in peace.”

Course the song’s overt politics views is not without detractors, the most infamous being Mark Chapman, the man who shot and killed John Lennon.  Mark felt John was a phoney for only imagining  a possession-less existence, yet was living the life of a typical millionaire.  Let’s not forget John originally moved from the U.K. to the U.S.A. to avoid high taxes.  The phrase “champagne socialist” exist for a reason.  Lets make good on John’s insistence, and try to picture the dream world he paints, and along the why I’ll demonstrate why it is more like a nightmare.  Lets start with the first verse:

“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…”

Right out the gate, pure atheism.  I will give John credit for not beating around the bush, as it saves “Imagine” from being a sappy monstrosity like “We are the World.”  While the focus is on the Judeo-Christian view of things, the “above us only sky” part implies a pure materialism.  A less delicate way of putting it would have been “in you only flesh and bones.”  Imagine no reincarnation, magic induced immortality, nirvana… Just die, do not pass go.  “Imagine all the people, livin’ for today”, with no regard for the here after.  Lets me honest here, most people, including those who do believe in a hell below, or their tradition’s equivalence, mostly live for the here and now.  If people didn’t, there wouldn’t be “born again” Christians.  If you really wonder what a world full of people, who do not believe in any higher being or power,  and just “live for today” would be like, just take Williamsburg and other hipster neighbourhoods and times them by a billion.  A world of hipsters, is that really what you want?

What strikes me the most is how unambitious and impotent “Living for today” sounds.  Compare to what Trotsky spoke of, a new Soviet Man: “… his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.”  Lot sexier than just “living for today.”  People may see “living for today” as alluding to Marx’s famous quote about being a cattle rancher, a hunter, a fishermen and a literary critic all in the same day, but even that has a certain aristocratic tone to it.  The quote sounds like something the upper class characters in an Oscar Wilde play would do on vacation in the English country side.  “Living for today” brings to mind video games and “Lord of the Rings” marathon with friends, or doing molly at a rave.  In other words fun, but cheap thrill activities.  And if you were hoping for higher goals to give you some sort of meaning and weight to your life, besides hedonistic pleasure and stimulation, like a nationalist or political cause…

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…”

While John directly mentions countries, I think he means any sort of political organization, whilst implying national/ethnic distinction (“…and the world will live as one”).  So no telling, or insisting how, or in what way, or with whom, others should “live for today.” What will we internet denizen do?  What would anybody be doing outside of eating, fucking, and watching TV for that matter?  I can understand not having the modern form of the nation-state.  But nothing worth fighting or dying for?  Then what meaning is their to living?  You’ve already established that there isn’t gigantic loving sky daddy, or anything outside the material to justify man’s existence, and even felt it necessary to reiterate “And no religion too.”  “Living for today” and “living life in peace” lacks any context, any higher propose, unless you consider “living for something other than today” and “living life in conflict” so terrible that it justifies the previous two.  “Peace” from what, to do what?  Oh right, peace so we can engage in an endless orgy of meaningless pleasure and stimulation.  And inventing of new values, new moralities within these bands of restriction would be pointless, and may cause arguments and division, subverting the holy commandment of Peace.  Oh wait, I thought we did away with that dumb religion nonsense.

“Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…”

The fact this is the verse that causes the most controversy tells you something about American society then and now.  I understand when this song was first released, we were in the depths of the cold war, and the call for ending private property (or any kind of possession for that matter, something even anarchist don’t do) along with atheistic themes caused people to see commie red.  But a meaningless world of common, or private property, is still meaningless.  I personally prefer rights to buy/sell things as I please, but if your ideal world is one where people don’t feel the need to claim things and aren’t greedy, so be it.  But that idea hinges on “the brotherhood of man” being worth sharing with.  Why should I share to the rest of humanity, when the world is just full of people with no higher aspirations than peace, pleasure, and sharing their stuff with me.  I’m glad they share with me, but what makes humanity so special? Why not literally share the World?  Animals need food and shelter.  Its not like a raccoon is that much different from a person in John’s world.  Sorry everybody, I gave all of the year’s harvest to ducks and deer.  They looked like they really needed it.

I honestly think the most disturbing thing about this verse, is what happens when you remove it.  Maybe filling it in with a guitar, a harmonica solo, or a good haunting hum.  The overall ideology would indistinguishable from extreme forms of libertarianism like anarcho-capitalism.  Lets see: no countries, no warfare, people living solely for consumption and production?  Imagine all the market activity!  The strong atheist bend makes me think of Stefan Molyneux, since he seems to make material atheism central to his philosophy.  Now that I look at the Freedommainradio logo….


freedommainradio logo

Imagine all the people, not being spanked


Finally, the song ends with the chorus:

“You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one”

Well John certainly was not the only one.  I say “was” because the idea of trying to reach “World Peace” has become something of a dated cliche.

It’s easy if you try

That clip probably dates back to the mid 90’s, when “The Simpsons” were still watchable.  How often do you hear the phrase “World Peace” or the world “Living as one?”  I’ve heard the phrase “Global Village”, but I only see it on the back of world folk albums aimed at SWPLs.  My guess is this kind of lovey-dovey rhetoric has died down because people actually want something to fight for.  The big motivators of social movements are mandaean good verses evil conflicts.  Just checkout tumblr.  How many SJW blogs say “hey, we all need to come together and work together for a brighter tomorrow.”  You’re more likely to see firebrand rants against MRAs, the Koch brothers, the 1%, and straight white males.

So in summary, in the imagined world we have here, human evolution and development has no more significance than a pebble rolling down a hill.  From the plains of Africa as hunter gatherers,  to spread all over the world, going through many civilizations over many centuries, waging war, inventing new technology, coming up with more sophisticated societies, until finally, humanity reaches its peak.  It forsakes fighting and war, religion and superstition, the idea of territory and countries, races and nations, to come together and… History ends like that.  Progress has gone as far as it can go, just short of alien contact.  Humanity raised itself from primitive existence, to what amounts to a different form of primitive existence.  We live for no higher ideals than the moment, we live for today.  The only moral values is peace and not causing conflict or fighting, not that there is anything worth fighting for anyway.  Travel for anything other than natural beauty is redundant, since we’re all just “human” with one single human culture.  In the end, we become no better than pigs, rolling in our own shit and filth, crawling around in dirt, always having dirt to play in.