Horror, Romance from a Male Perspective.

“Just because it’s a love story doesn’t mean it can’t have a decapitation or two.”

Robert Englund, Wes Cravens’ New Nightmare

Horror movies. Love them or hate them you most likely have a hardline opinion on them. Few have apathy for the genre. Some love gore, some love to be scared and some find those things to be damning to the soul and would much rather see these movies never be made again. Can we find a universal redeeming quality for one of my favorite genres? Maybe and that is what we’re going to look at. I believe Horror movies are really romances at heart, from the male point of view.

Obviously, what we’re seeing onscreen is “real” in terms of the world these characters are living in, So we’re dealing with this from the point of subtext and not a literal interpretation.

The typical killer in these movies are normally male and pretty masculine. They’re representative of the id and all the primitive instincts that make it up. Sexuality, Aggression and instincts. There is no ego or super ego to keep them in check, they couldn’t care less. Their driving force is satiety.

The typical survivor girl is almost always female, hence the term, and more akin of the ego and superego. They’re the ones struggling to keep control against the ID. This is why they’re often virtuous and innocent in the beginning.

Now that we set the tone for what I’m arguing, we can start to examine the micro aspects of the genre, like the weapon almost always being subtext for a phallus. Normally it is a blade of some sort, be it a sword, knife or machete. Why? Because at some point the survivor girl is going to be penetrated by the knife or cut somehow and this is subtext for sexual penetration. Masculinity and femininity combined as one, occasionally resulting in the monster themselves being impaled later on by their own weapon, in role reversal. I’ll elude more to this below.  

The friends or other victims are almost always shallow and that’s because the ID isn’t friendly to what it wants. I know a lot of us critics will point out that these characters need development and while I stand by that, the killer’s perspective couldn’t care less. When they’re men, they represent competition for what the ID wants and need to be dispatched and when they’re woman, they’re just “sexual” fodder, due to not satiating the unbridled carnality.

The endings usually see the survival girl “kill” off the monster, which is subtext for the lust being quenched by the object of desire and as stated above, the monster being penetrated, normally in the heart area, as subtext of falling in love, which juxtaposes with the females often being stabbed in the uterus area, as if being impregnated.

So why monsters as analogy, vs aggressive men? Men are often vilified for their desires and what they would do to achieve those ends. This is the enteral plight of the individuals fight with the ego, albeit not exhibited onscreen, but rather in how the villain is perceiving themselves and showing us who they feel as if they are.

Horror and romances even have similar plot points within the story structure. Meetcutes for instance, when the future couple meets for the first time. Halloween where Michael is standing behind the bush is an example of this.

While not exhaustive, when you examine these main points, all of this makes the horror-slasher genre really a love story from the point of the male libido.

The Wrong Missy, David Spade Revival Theater


Well, it seems Netflix decided what the world needed after nearly two decades of absence was another David Spade flick. Oh joy!

Shit! All the same BS these movies are known for, simple archetypes, if you can call them that.

None have ever been horrible actors, so, unlike this flick, its tolerable.

Fantastic, which is more than I can say for the rest of the movie.

Shit! Fuckin’ stupid premise, horrible jokes, terrible story overall.

Same as above

None that I noticed.

Devoid of it

They couldn’t be bothered to make a movie, I can’t be bothered to do much of a review as I have said before. This piece of shit is unfunny. Happy Gilmore is nothing but a group of aging boomers that never grew up and the subject matter shows in this movie. I would say they are attempt to recapture their “glory years” but you would have to have had glory years for that to be true. It’s sad and pathetic group of people that are now stealing money from companies like Netflix, whom will see no fucking return, just to keep their dipshit friends employed within Hollywood. They’re not actors, they’re over glorified welfare recipients. David Spade sent his career to finally visit Chris Farley and after this outing, maybe he should consider doing the same.

0 out of 5 stars.

Cancel CULTure and You: An overview of an undying trend.

Cancel culture has been a buzz word for near a decade now and it hasn’t shown any signs of slowing. As of this writing, the newest member of the cancel wars is Bryan Adams. Why? Getting upset that he couldn’t have any concerts and saying this,

“….thanks to some f—ing bat eating, wet market animal selling, virus making greedy bastards, the whole world is now on hold….”

This type of tweet falls under the category of “Racism” by the people who jumped on the hashtag for canceling the Bruce of the north.

Why though, does all this stuff happen? It comes down to perspective for the most part. You see, humans are social. We work on cost/benefit ratio if you have ever read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Within, you learn about monkeys, of which we share a majority of our DNA with. The animal groupings have at least two types. Reciprocal and Cheats. Reciprocal animals are prosocial, which is to say, they do things that benefit the tribe and are considered what would constitute a normal functioning human. Cheats are psychopathic animals, which get a net benefit from a fellow animal and do not reciprocate. Within the book Dawkins points out grooming, literal and not pedophilic, to remove tics and fleas from a fellow monkey to keep them healthy from disease, in turn, that monkey would do it for another. There are penalties for this antisocial behavior. In the US, for instance, we have prisons and rule of law to deal with this type of behavior. Everything follows from this and all is stepped in the primitive side of the brain. Cancel Culture is also an extension of this. So, the short answer is that yes, you’re a fuckin’ Nazi, but not for the reasons you think you’re a fuckin Nazi.


I spoke about how people Tribalize within Pre-Crime, I mentioned the MBTI and how it functions. Beyond that, humans have two types of perspective. Global and local. Bill Hicks, legendary comedian, sums up the global perspective in this quote, excellently.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”

Notice the quote does not leave out anyone, it, to borrow again from Bill, sees us all as one. Humanism is globalism and liberal perspective is also globalism. Local perspective is tribal and limited to only people like you. Hence, you’re genuinely a fuckin’ Nazi, since the Nazi were concerned with helping only Germanic whites. Other whites were not white and considered tainted by the Jew. Hitler was basically a cheat. When it came down to it, Nazi Germany flourished and all other white majority nations suffered during the depression an absolute catalyst for the Second World War. His lack of global perspective cost him, otherwise Nazi Germany might still exist had he form alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom whilst sharing his resources with them as both had done with Germany, as Hitler was ascending towards prominence, before everything went kaput.

Given those two perspectives, cancel culture comes more into focus as to why it happens and how to predict when, where, why and how it will strike next.

Internet Tribes

It’s no secret that humans are hyper-tribalized more than ever. Back in the 1940’s, you had states and nation. When local cities competed, it was school football and not relevant, most cities did not try to destroy one another. Now, that is all gone, instead we have generational cohorts, we have personality types, we have genetics, we have superficial visuals, we have music, movies, television and more that has turned human tribes into the equivalent an reductio ad absurdum argument. Internet tribes are no different from outside peer groupings in most cases, albeit, some slight differences. You can be both a winner and a loser. Online you can have 100k Instagram followers, but most of those losers still work at McDonald’s as not everyone is making enough to live on. Us writers know the value of a day job, whereas the internet porn star can make enough to not have a day job. We’re just going to focus on the internet version of you, not the real world version of you. Now to be fair, a person’s perspective can be influenced by a lot of things, you have to keep their perspective in mind. It’s no secret that I use social media for experimenting and have kept track of how people engage me on social media and I will be using myself as an example and go between perspective and reality.

Reality when it comes to me:
I’m from Salem, Mass.

I was born in 1986.

Technically, I fall into the category of neither Gen-X nor Millennial, but possess a tad bit of traits from each, now referred to as Xennial.
I MBTI type as INTJ often, but I have a J mother and a P father, so I possess traits of both of them as well, so the occasional person whom thinks I’m a INTP is perfectly reasonable.

Both my parents are young boomers, aka Generation Jones or the early 60’s boomers.





Liberal upbringing

I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. By that, I mean, I like Gays, but like saving money.

I’m a writer, among other things, but this is one thing I’m currently doing, so we’re using this, regardless of other projects.

Now here is some perspective of me:

Most people think I’m purely a Gen-X kid, most of these people. Often people tell me I “Feel older”. Now a days, I am occasionally confused for a Gen Z kid, which is overly generous of most people.

Normally they consider me an INTJ or a very queer P type. I’m a consummate outsider, which is fine by me, because it allows for objective perspective. The phrase “You’re not like me” is said to me quite often and they mean it. I don’t disagree with these people that do not see me as being like them, because we’re often, very dissimilar.

Due to my perceived age, I don’t think people truly believe I am an atheist.
I’m considered Liberal

So, now that we have some traits out of the way, but it is in no way an exhaustive list, we can look at some of my past experiences on Twitter.
Recently, for the first time in years, I had a trigger fest. Not enough to cancel me, but what I refer to as WWE Heel Heat. I said, The Beetles suck. Yes, I went there and they triggered and it was pretty funny. How is this not “Pro-social” behavior? It isn’t, which is why I wasn’t cancelled, but considered queer by my perceived generational discrepancy. The problem here is more excessive fandom in one angle and immaturity on the other. Also, in some cases, that is pro-social behavior, such as slut shaming, which I mention in my essay “An Aside on the Ménage Et Toi” I see this more violently in Millennials than older generations, since when one becomes a full adult, one is supposed to have a more lax attitude towards differences like these, since connecting on more intricate levels is adulthood and something stupid like music is often how children engage each other.

Other things in this category include a Youtube video attacking religion, which got WWE heel heat about a decade ago.

Still, I have not been canceled, except from where I currently live, but that’s because the town is filled with idiots.

Plenty of my prosocial tweets get likes.

Now this brings me here, which is that the things people cancel each other over are clearly anti-social behavior, or psychopathy. One need look no further than to the homosexual man who is anti-gay marriage that is essentially cheating out his fellow homosexuals from what they desire. Cancel culture doesn’t look at intellectual arguments, it looks at behavior. If you do not believe that, in is one more way to tell, and that is Twitter doesn’t allow you to tattle on your own team mates. Why? It would be anti-social in their mind, when the reality is different. Now, I do not have a team, I am on no one’s side in the political spectrum. I’m a registered Libertarian only in that it encompasses my desire for maximum freedom. All sides are the same bull-shitters in my view and I don’t want anything to do with them. I independently hit both sides of the spectrum with thoughts and evidence. Neither side has a corner stone on thinking, yet they wouldn’t bother to register the reports. I can only report people not on my perceived team. I can see why Dorsey was never liked by his generation, he is very psychopathic. We’ll eventually get to him and one other famous social media figure, in regards to this similar topic, but in closing Thanks for choosing my team for me, Dorsey, when I never did. May you choke to death the next time you eat Chic’Fliet.

Fashionably Late Book Reviews: Being Logical by D.Q. McInerny.

INTRODUCTION: I first read Being Logical when I was in my early 20’s. I absolutely loved it then, because it was a short and concise introduction to formal logic, which is sadly, no longer taught at the college level and hadn’t been for years by the time I was old enough to attend. This is the exact book that I thought was going to be a huge game changer if you could get enough people to read it. Sadly, I was unaware back then, that a majority of the United States was highly illiterate. So sadly, upon further inspection recently, I do not think as highly of this book, given this new data, as it would be closer to a collegiate textbook for the average American than I would hope, even though it was hugely inspired by Strunk&White Elements of Style, falls way short of that book and even invokes errors that the book would of warned against. So lets look at this book through a modern lens and see who the audience is and if it is worthwhile.

PROSE: The prose is fine, albeit a tad bit too complex for the average American reader. You can tell it is also heavily influenced by Aristole’s Oragaon, as McInerny’s expression of a quantification of a thing is nearly identical to Aristole’s. In fact, it was nearly verbatim. This is extremely confusing to the most readers who wouldn’t be able to discern such and why would they? If it was an attempt is to be a cheap collegiate text for those of us whom are autodidactic than it would be fantastic, but it was meant for the normal reader as an introductory text to formal logic and it fails miserably in that respect.

FORM: Book form is fantastic! It has a section on the formal fallacies, including their original Latin names and makes for a fantastic glossary. I’ve been using it for years, along with The Philosopher’s Toolkit as glossaries to look things up, should something slip my mind. I think the average reader is going to roll their eyes at the Latin and think of this as boring though and that is a negative for the book. Albeit, I and others of my ilk will find this to be a fantastic aspect, the intended audience would not concur with us.

This book, which should be for everyone, falls short of the mark. I’ve been pitching it for years and well, few seem to care about formal logic and thinking correctly. Typical human hubris that makes them think they’re thinking correctly, because as well all know with stupid people, they’re always correct and perfect. So, even though the audience this was intended for, would have very little use for it, it makes one hell of an introduction to Logic for everyone else. I would highly recommend this book to someone creating a high school or adult ed course on Logic and if Universities ever bring formal logic courses back, this would be a great 101 text. The average American is most likely not going to put much thought into this and probably toss it before they finished chapter one and that is a downright crime. On the textbook merits, I give it 5 out of 5 stars, even if it is a tad bit stuffy for some people. For the average American, though, I have to give it a paltry 3 out of 5. At least he tried to bring logic to Americans, and that would be commended. Thank you for such a fantastic book, even if it isn’t as appreciated as it could be.

Kageoween:Horror Collections, Scare Street Horror book four

INTRODUCTION: It’s that time of year, again, and my favorite time of year. That is right, it is Kageoween and I am kicking off one of my favorite months with this short horror collection. I’m not sure when I picked this Kindle e-book up but it was probably for Halloween and it was either cheap or free. I decided to read the first few stories in it, because it only has a few and wow! I managed to make my way through five of 10 of the stories in this collection and skipped the “bonus novel” which, if that is anything like the 5 stories I read is ironically named. (Turned out, you had to e-mail for the bonus novel, still a pass).

The stories were filled with shallow characters. The first one alone was a clear Stephen King homage and boy did it miss the mark on both characters and homage. The woman draws a nine millimeter on a homeless person, without much hesitation. What a horrible character! How do we know the homeless character is what the author tells us “she” is without build? She was shallower than my character in Happy Acres, which isn’t my finest of hour when it comes to writing, so I’m an expert on this. All of them in the first five are highly forgettable.

PROSE: Telling, telling and more telling. The first one had one decent part of showing, which was the old woman’s hands which you can see for yourself and compare it to the excerpt down below.

The fingers, Wendy noticed, were exceptionally thin, the forefingers longer than the middles. And each finger was tipped with a long, dull gray nail, the edges of which looked wickedly sharp.-Going for a Walk by Ron Ripley.

Who the hell was the curator and editor on this thing, Stevie Wonder? Rubbish is an understatement!

DIALOGUE: Oh good god! It has more cringe than an autistic or a YouTube if you want to get technical, trying to be cool. This excerpt is from the second story within the book:

My hand appears to have some kind of bracelet around it, most likely a hospital admittance bracelet; the kind with name and DOB.- Story Two, The Doctor’s Questions, Eric Whittle.

Never mind the face a comma would have sufficed and there was no need for a semicolon, but no shit Sherlock? What other type of bracelet would it has been?
How about this little piece of cringe from the first story

From the chain’s sagging center, a faded sign reading “No Trespassing” hung limply. There was no breeze to move it.-Going for a Walk by Ron Ripley.

This simple sentence could have read “The sign hung still, dangling from a single rusted chain. The faded and chipped white sign had bold red lettering, reading “No trespassing.”

Instead we get his shitty take on the sentence. I’m not saying mine is the end all be all of writing, but it is a step in the right direction.

SUBTEXT: None, unless, how to shill shit counts as subtext.

CONCLUSION: For a book that was most likely free, it is still, somehow, too much of a cost for the “pleasure” of read this short story collection. If you’re looking for something to read this Halloween, I highly advise to steer clear.

1 out of 5 stars.

Communism for the USA: One for all and all for Comrade

A lot of people in entertainment seem to be obsessed with the concept that we’re slowly becoming a communist society and that that is ultimately a bad thing. I submit to you that we’re already living in Communist America and have been for nearly a century. You see it everywhere with Alt-Right vs Antifa, or Democrat vs Republican. We always seem to be at war with the communist. At one point in time, during WW2, communist were our allies in the fight against Hitler and the rest of the axis. Capitalism and Communism joining forces, though? Seems weird, since they’re like cats and dogs, right? Yet it happened and shortly after the fact America, clearly trying to wash the stink of pinko off their consciousness, profusely attacked anyone and everything it thought was a commie. McCarthy started it off in the 50’s and then the 60’s and 70’s saw Cuba and Vietnam as battlegrounds for anti-commie ideologues and least we forget the cold war, which lasted decades. So for something so inherently evil, we must surely need to teach our children about this horror, correct? Apparently not, as no one on either side, even neuvo communist, seem to understand what the fuck communist is and one side likes to keep purporting it hasn’t really been tried yet and the other sounding like the Ghost of Joseph McCarthy himself and all of it rings as hallow as the stereotype of your typical comrade. So what exactly is communism and what are its goals? Well, we’re going to define communism as Marxism and nothing past that. You see, anyone can highjack an ideology and use its name to push their negative agendas, history is full of this. Nazi’s originally started as a working class party before Hitler highjacked it. The Alt-Right has stolen conservatism for far right perversions as Antifa has perverted liberalism with far left insanity. As such, I have picked Marx for the fact it was a unique concept for the time, he did invent it technically and anything else riding his coats would not have been supported by the Herr Comrade himself, Marxist Clause.

So Marx defined communist as a proletariat run society, where the class struggle between them and the bourgeois would end and the workers would no longer be exploited. He had a list of 10 things that were the ultimate goals for communist to move to make for a better society and that is what we’re going to look at right now and see how bad Marxism really is as opposed to US Capitalism and give it a break down.

At first thought, a proletariat society doesn’t sounds too bad, I mean, it really wasn’t and original concept and goes back to ancient Rome with similar aspects, like the pata familiars. So it isn’t out of line to have been tried in the past that is until we get up to 1776, where our society also tried a government system by plebeian or as they put it “Government of the People, by the people for the people”. Marx would write the Communist Manifesto in the 1800’s. I know you’re thinking, that is irrelevant linking and surely there was a difference between rhetoric to arouse patriotic passion in early Americans and evil communism? Well, sure there is. America and Communism are vastly different systems with different goals, here I’ll show you by posting the list.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

The first desire to get rid of land rights and abolish the taxes on property that isn’t public land. How novel of him. Seems pretty conservative of him to want an end to property tax. He also didn’t want people to own land privately. Except no one really owns the land, the banks and governments do, so we’re already one step closer to apparently living in a Marxist world.

Now you’re saying, hey, that is just one thing that is similar and that doesn’t mean we’re living in a communist world. Look at all the non-commie world stuff. Ok, there are plenty of non-governmental examples of capitalism, but allow me to continue.
The second aspect he wants is a progressive tax or graduated tax. To those who do not know what that is, that would be where poor people pay no income tax and rich people pay more. Which obviously, isn’t an American concept at all! (Please note authors sarcasm)

Ok, you say, that is two similar things and there is a finite number of things in the world, so the odd thing or two is bound to be similar. Let us look at the next part which is the abolition of inheritance. In America, you have no right to inheritance. It is all based on legal documents that need to be drawn up that name you a benefactor of the individual’s possession in question. Why? A person could have innumerable wives, children and other family all whom could, technically speaking, lay a claim to any and all of it. Who would be more deserving or the family heirlooms, the son or a sibling? Who are we to decide which is more important than the other? Objectively speaking, this doesn’t exist. We even have a death tax, which to their credit, conservatives are against, so the only party that feels entitled to your stuff is government.

Ok, so that is three things out of 10, how many more could possibly be similar, well, glad you asked. 4 wants to take property from immigrants and rebels. I would presume there were different connotations to rebels in his time, but it seems to have pretty much the same as we already do this and both the left and right think it is kosher. FDR threw Japanese Americans into the gulags in the 40s and seized their property. Sure, Regan would rectify this in the 1980s, but it still happened. Our country is founded on taking other people’s stuff, like the Native Americans. If we extend rebels to include criminals, then in the 1970s, Biden introduced legislation to take property from criminals before they had even been indicted. This is very much in line with communism and their list of 10 things. 5 is the government having total control over credit by means of a national bank with state having a monopoly over money. Which sound a lot like the Federal Reserve bank, that pesky little thing libertarians hate but is loved by the GOP and Dems.

You’re probably banging your head on the table now being like, well there cannot be much more, ah but there is. Marx calls for Amtrak and other similar things being run by the state. 7 is excessive regulation, which pretty much means the government owns you by the balls and calls for forced working or as the GOP likes to cry about excessive “I have to work and so does everyone else”. 9 is government subsidies to farms and 10 calls for free education, of which, while not free, is state run and paid for by your tax dollars. He also wanted to end child labor and teach practical skill with other education, or what school has always universally had for a curriculum.

This is undoubtedly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute smoking gun proof we live in a Marxist society. How have we fared? Well, the class struggle still exist, doesn’t it? The middle class is eroding and the divide is furthering, but yet we’re still calling for more of the same. Oh sure, I’ll admit that communist works in part, I mean, it has since 1776, but that more we add on to that, the worst society seems to get. I cannot seem to understand why people seem that Communism hasn’t been tried yet and yet also purport it to be evil and a failure.

Furthermore, it seems like both teams have their heads up their asses more than usual when it comes to the anti-commie rhetoric. Ironically, the left is the right and the right is the left. If conservatives want to keep America traditional, then they’re truly Marxist at heart as we would be keeping it that way. The left who want to further try communism, because we don’t live in that type of society, must have no concept of what Marx was truly all about and maybe they should read the book, it is a very short read, because I would hate to see what their version of Marxism is. In fact, for years our country considered changing itself as unpatriotic and commie, which is clearly the complete opposite of what it was. Wanting to change it is truly the least Marxist thing one could do. Regardless of current viewpoint, you have to admit the evidence is damming. I personally think we should look to cultivate a new system and have my own ideas of what that would look like, but at the end of the day, we’re all comrades in our Marxist world and I think we can finally put an end to the rift or one of the rifts that is driving a divide in our country. No longer should we be fighting each other over our ignorance. Let us, to paraphrase Marx at the end of the Communist Manifesto, UNITE!