?

Log in

Friends only



Friends only - comment to be added.

Okay, someone pointed out that non-friends are unable to comment on this post. I had thought I'd had this particular post set to allow anyone to reply, but even after finding this out and tinkering about, it is not letting that happen. So I am going to take this off of friends only. EDIT: Which I also can't figure out how to undo. In the mean time, send me a message. Just figured it out. Now allowing comments from non-friends.

There are two levels of friends here: normal and "Friends." If I know you from somewhere else, let me know, so I can add you to "Friends."

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )
Very strange book, quite the bizarre tale, and morally pretty icky. The protagonist, “God,” is plainly evil, narcissistic, genocidal, with the emotional range of a toddler. Which is something that *could *be done well, but nearly every character in the story fawns over him, praising him no matter how evil he is or how much he blunders, something I found unrealistic until Trump was elected to the oval office. In fact, the only character to call God out on his BS - a fellow named Lucifer - and tries to overthrow this brutal dictator gets punished by being made to be the prison warden of God’s version of the Guantanamo Bay prison, forced to torture political prisoners on God’s behalf. Which, as punishments go, is a really weird choice.

The protagonist also blames his own creations, mankind, for their own downfall, because he’s unable or unwilling to admit that he made a mistake in their construction. That is, if someone telling you that someone was lying to you and then telling you the truth being hidden from you, and subsequently acting on the truth, can be considered a mistake, which the writers clearly seem to have intended as the moral of that particular story. This is just one of the many reasons I wonder if the writers of this work were fascists, or would have been fascists if they lived today. The protagonist, God, is a textbook case of a fascist dictator, his rules being oppressive and largely illogical. In fact, almost half of the first book reads like Kim Jung Un sat down to write out a list of stuff he didn’t like. Plainly “God” had a bad case of Montezuma’s Revenge from a bad seafood platter once, as that’s one of the things considered just as bad to him as killing people (unless it’s in his name. Which, come to think of it, is never revealed in this book, “God” being a title).

If reading just the Old Testament, the story at least makes *that* much sense. But the sequel, the New Testament, muddies things a lot. Plainly written by an entirely different author or set of authors than the first, the protagonist’s personality completely changes, but in a strange way. It feels, actually, like an entirely different character is being grafted onto the original protagonist. It’s not presented, in the book, as the evil protagonist having an epiphany and trying to right his wrongs, but instead tries to claim that this evil narcissistic dictator is also this loving, gentle, kind being. The first book reads like an honest account of a corrupt and evil ruler who - in ways that are never really made clear - somehow also has the love of the people, possibly someone plagiarized the original manuscript and attempted some half-arsed, pro-God propaganda?

Also, there’s some kind of time travel involved, in which now the protagonist becomes his own father in a story that would make Oedipus raise an eyebrow, except that his mother somehow becomes pregnant without having sex. I guess the midichlorians are highly concentrated within her and her child? It’s never really explained, and the reader is left to wonder about that.

So the protagonist, who is now simultaneously up on his throne *and* down among the people to spread his new message of “love thy neighbor as thyself” also apparently gets captured and executed by the Romans in order to die as a sign that he forgives his human creations for his own mistake? I suppose that’s better than completely blaming them for something that was entirely *his* fault, but not by much.

The story is also riddled with plot holes, contradictions, pointless asides, an entire chapter of gratuitous pornography that contributes nothing to the plot, has less historical accuracy than an episode of Ancient Aliens, is harder to understand than Joyce’s Ulysses, is dull as dirt, and routinely advocates rape, incest, slavery, genocide, spousal abuse, and war crimes just as long as they’re done in God’s name, whilst simultaneously condemning lust, murder, lying, theft, and being cheeky to your parents. Seriously, this story is like the literary equivalent of sewing an octopus head to a giraffe’s neck, replacing two of the giraffe legs with alligator legs, and giving it flamingo wings. Then setting it on fire, but it won’t die, it just keeps running around like mad, burning and screaming in agony.

Further, as deities go, you’d be hard pressed to find one more evil, horrifying, and morally bankrupt than this “God” fellow without reading the works of Lovecraft. And even then, I’m not sure there’s worse.

In conclusion, this work is utter garbage in every respect, and I cannot for the life of me fathom how it got published at all. As a work of literature, it makes “Twilight” and “50 Shades of Grey” look like Pulitzer Prize winners by comparison. If the writers of this travesty were attempting to write the most nonsensical pile of literary crap in the universe, I’d say they deserve the gold medal. I don’t think Edward Bulwer-Lytton himself could have written worse crap even during the midst of an LSD-fueled waking nightmare. I could literally take a dump on a piece of paper and it would be a better story than this book. If you crossed “Mein Kampf” with Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and the story of Oedipus Rex, added in Voldemort from the Harry Potter series as a protagonist but halfway through the book tried to mix Harry Potter’s personality with Voldemort’s in an extremely slipshod manner, then threw in a collection of random fairy tales and a chapter from “50 Shades of Grey,” it would *still *make more sense than The Bible. Seriously, this book is like a fascist's mescaline-fueled wet dream.

This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/286369.html
You can comment either here or there.

Be childfree

Thought this was worth repeating here.

A question from Quora: Why don’t I, a straight and healthy young man, like the idea of having children?

My answer:

It’s understandable. Infants are ugly, drooling little poop machines, like little senile old people, but young and empty-headed instead of old and senile. Also, they’re a drain on resources even before being born, and even in our modern era, being pregnant and giving birth is still only slightly safer for uterus-bearers than is tightrope walking over a pit of boiling lava.

Toddlers are basically infants that can say the same few words *ad nauseum* and run around chasing danger wherever it may lurk. It doesn’t help that they have very little sense of self preservation and constantly need to be stopped from killing themselves horribly. Trying to negotiate with toddlers is good practice for a career in hostage negotiation, because until they learn the basics of life in this world, they’re forever holding themselves hostage: “GIVE ME WHAT I WANT NOW OR I’LL KILL MYSELF!”

The only consolation with a toddler is they are, at least, beginning to approach being cute, even if they’re still not much better looking than they were when they were hideous little big-headed monstrosities with fat, useless little limbs. Seriously, what is the appeal of infants? I’ve seen cuter things in my toilet after taking a massive dump.

Kids only really start getting cute around age 5 or 6, peaking around ages 7 through 9, at which point they begin to go downhill. By around age 11 or 12, just as they’ve started to stabilize emotionally and mentally, along comes the puberty monster to turn them into larger and slightly more intelligent toddlers, but with raging hormones and the discovery of the libido, unless they’re lucky enough to be asexual. (Gods, I wish I had been asexual in my teens. I was hornier than an ankylosaurus growing up, with no outlet because I was a hideous and bloated monstrosity, possessing all the social standing of a dead sewer rat. But I digress.)

The teenage years are basically your body installing an entirely new lymbic system and setting it to MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE. (In “Agents of Shield,” when Ada gets her new human body and goes apeshit with the overpowering emotions, that’s sort of the same idea.) Absolutely everything becomes earth-shatteringly important, life or death. There are more ups and down than a thousand people on pogo sticks that occasionally either shoot into space or down into the crust of the earth.

It takes a huge toll on the teenager, and probably an even larger toll on the parents who have to deal with the constant crises.

And so yeah, kids are a lifelong investment, costing thousands of dollars over time, and are emotionally exhausting. I haven’t had kids myself, but I was 9 when my sister was born, and she took about 10 years to grow out of her terrible twos. It was like a war zone in our house, I’m not even exaggerating. She could howl loud enough to be heard several streets away, and could do it for HOURS. I hope if she ever has kids, she has THREE just like her!

In conclusion, kids: don’t have them unless you have enough money, and the patience of a saint.

This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/286025.html
You can comment either here or there.

Tags:

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

In response to racist idiots on Tumblr

On Tumblr there was a post by some racist idiot that basically said "LOL why is there a black guy in Malefiscent? Black people weren't in Europe back then!" This was a rant related to that:

Subject: I hate these racist historical revisionist assholes.

Body:

JFC! Seriously, Thor Heyerdahl proved the Egyptians could've gone to the Americas in their boats, their boats weren't even half as good as the ones the Phoenicians had, the Americas are loaded with a fuckton of evidence that ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, India, and China visited the Americas thousands of years before most European cultures (especially any of the white European cultures!) had so much as invented the dinghy, and yet thanks to the old white racist men controlling the Establishment in archaeology we've got to deal with 90% of people thinking black people weren't in Europe in the middle ages.

Seriously, white Europeans wouldn't have even been in Ireland or Britain if the ice age hadn't created a land bridge there and stranded some of them there. I'm trying to remember if the Celts or Germans or any other white European cultures had any kind of boats at all before Rome conquered them and I'm honestly drawing a blank. So unless I'm misremembering, it's 1000 times more of a stretch to believe white people were in Africa before the rise of Rome than it is to believe black people were in medieval Europe, even before considering the historical fact that they were there.

And even if nothing else, unless you're telling me that white people are literal pure-blooded Neanderthals instead of hybrids like most humans are these days, people from Africa were in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago! Now admittedly they were probably mostly banished albinos, but there were most likely black Africans among them, too.

This kind of shit is why I hate the racist white Establishment in archaeology. Not only are they responsible for so many people thinking black people in medieval Europe were rarer than hen's teeth, they're also to blame for shit like people thinking ancient structures like pyramids were either built by aliens or Atlanteans or by using magic. Fuck the Establishment, and fuck racists. With a CHAINSAW.

This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/285893.html
You can comment either here or there.

Reality is falling apart



The weirdest part of all this is how this man's original old english Bibles have the word "stuffe" instead of things or some other word, when old English didn't even HAVE a word "stuffe" in it!

This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/285536.html
You can comment either here or there.

Profile

Alex Avatar
alex_antonin
Bishop Sanctimonious the Hypocritical

Latest Month

May 2017
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner