My LJ gets so slow that I just give up. I have noticed a correlation between this and critical times in politics. As I've noted, my laptop and hard-drive was destroyed during anti-Clinton posts - more trouble with anti-Obama posts. These people are shooting themselves in the foot, as we have seen, through what they did to Sanders. It makes no sense that LJ would be messing with me, as they are Russian, and have proved that they support me. It appears more that it is my server, PeoplePC.com, which is right in there in the Virginia-WDC beehive. Who knows - but the slow internet of course causes me to go away and get on with other aspects of my life. So, this is one reason I am not always around. There are other reasons, like using the prospect of the Clinton-Bush Crime Syndicate getting back into the White House as an excuse to drink wine. And so forth.
The old bald guy actually left for a day recently. This is rare, because he never even goes out. I go out more than he does, and I am disabled. So - this gave me the chance to get more sleep - which I badly needed after Halloween, the holiday that never was. I was hoping that he drove to Cleveland to see two days worth of Cubs, (since all he does is watch sports on his TV, except when he is messing with me, which really is a large part of his life). But, he returned last night, when I was watching a DVD of, "Moby Dick," the Canadian miniseries from 2011.
I have been forever intrigued by Moby Dick. It was one of my (1851) favourite reads. I have also been forever rooted in the American Renaissance, or the era of the Transcendentalists. Moby Dick is a very rollicking, Gothic, adventurous panoply of love and guts, of spirit and daring, of madness and religion, and so forth. The reason why the book never caught on in it's age, with the public, is because it was never philosophically cut-and-dry. It was confusing. White was supposed to represent evil? The anti-religious Ahab was on some religious quest?
Early readers and critics were put off because there was no epilogue to this book, and so they thought that it was nonsensical. There was no surviving Ishmael to tell the story. But, I feel that there was more than this that damaged the book's popularity. I think it was because people did not want to think of the emerging corporate-industrial psychopathy that was serving their needs. I don't think they were ready for this whole thing of some Hitler-like psychopath leading them off a cliff.
Much of my life, I have wanted to square away the meaning of Moby Dick. I have finally come to this conclusion: It was written by a fine reporter, Nathanial Hawthorne, who wanted to be a renowned poet, like many of that time. The reporter, Hawthorne, had a replete, respectable knowledge and fascination with whaling, as Samuel Clemens had with the Mississippi culture. As my beloved Kipling and Stephenson and Defoe, knew about sailing and such. Then, Hawthorne threw in a lot of Shakespearean references and devices.
But the philosophical congruity which I was looking for? Not there. And this vast ambiguity is precisely what made the book ever-adaptable for succeeding ages. There was no bottom line. Hawthorne was a great writer, but a poor philosopher, who emulated Longfellow, Shakespeare, and the giants of his age. Nevertheless, he did something really great.
He painted over his reportings - such as that of the true white whale, "Mocha Dick" - with Shakespearean language and symbolism, but he didn't have a final grasp of what he was talking about. He lacked a philosophical compass of his own. All the heavy allusions go back to other writers - or - well - maybe he added some of his own depth - idk. It was a deep, yet young, time.
Despite the manufactured-home quality, I am called by something to figure out this book. One reason is because I know that Hawthorne was influence by his times, which were a mixing-up of Puritanism and Amsterdam industry and English anti-authoritarianism and early abolitionism. This was the musterings of a nation. And it was trying really hard to make big news in the literary circles - as the capitalist adventurers took their own courses.
One thing I can see, is this: Ahab represented a renegade, offshoot of emerging fundamentalism. He chose LIBERTARIANISM, (which would become the demon of our age - making this a book of prophesy). Ahab was amoral or antheistic. He believed we should break the chains of prophesy and animal ritual, and rise above. Yet - he ends up fulfilling a dream of becoming one with THE ANIMAL, which was predicted by others in the church. As he wished, he became one with the whale he meant to conquer, and the whale was fine with this.
I have too much more to say about this, so I am leaving off for now.
Excellent movie/series. Highly authentic, supported by its Canadian genesis. Twice, the sailors sported such nonsense, like, "MO-BY DICK! MO-BY-DICK!" - so similar to, "U-S-A! U-S-A!" - It was obvious that the Canadians were making pokings at popular American Imperialism. Kudos.
Also - frightful - how dumb sheeplings can be drawn into supporting the greater corporations that be.
As I said - more later.
I followed this up with, "There Will Be Blood, " which took Fargo, and David Lynch, to extremes beyond. Except that it merged so close to reality, I thought it was a farce.
Once again, the sweet, overbearing Christian community - the WE-ple - allowed a psychopath into their lands, who made big promises, but ended up taking everything. He wanted to do well, but also didn't want to be around people, and had a competitive addiction which was his own undoing - getting worse and worse, as he does more and more damage, killing more people.
Psychopaths are enabled by good, trusting Christians. THAT is why they are now taking over our nation. That is why creeps and terrorists sneak through our psychic defenses - then we are alarmed that we are being attacked - by people who ONLY KNOW to attack. They were raised on the milk of war.
But, I will say, there is an opposite problem: A cynicism born of jaded naivete, which does more harm than good, especially to the subject. It results in this profusion of passive aggression and spite and tit-for-tat and suspicion and blame which is permeating the whole society - no wonder resulting in retarded politics and regressive policies.
But, it is all weakness. It is fanciful power. It is all games. It is not real. But, it lauds might, and money, and manipulation in its leaders or bullies, only to fall defeated to them eventually. Elect the people who impress us with these qualities, and wake up to find ourselves being destroyed by those very faults. Those very cunning Machiavellians - it is they who buy and ship in the terrorists. The Chinese. The Mexicans. The drugs. Show me a person with these qualities who is also GOOD! Not gonna happen.
So, we should stop imagining that impressive politicians are essential good like us, and that their signs of sin are not mere aberrations, but plain billboards leading us to the truth that these people are fundamentally, in Christian language, EVIL.
Well, it hasn't happened in any elections that I know of. What happens is that one side calls the other side's candidate evil, and vice versa, proud of their oh-so-GOOD candidate - but we get evil either way, because we are implicated in evil, through the despair of our GOOD.