A friend and I argued once about Marx. It got so bitter, that we left angry. And, it turns out my suspicions were accurate.

I will kill the myth of the Easter Bunny. Marx was Lower Middle Class. He had a servant. He had a loving family, of which, he doted on his daughters. He even had cute nicknames which he gave them. He had a beautiful wife, who loved him. And, when she died, Marx would die a year later.

For the man who hates family, he sure had a good one. For the man who hates the middle class, he was of it.

Marx lived a happy life. With a happy family. And like his followers, he was ungrateful and raged against his lack of victimhood. The system never did to him half of the perceived insult against him.

Perhaps he saw the struggle of those lower than him. Perhaps, he was filled with compassion, having true love encompass him in his life. Having the pleasures of family, friends, and wealth, he could speculate freely on the working class.

Surely, his whining and ungrateful attitude is reflected in his worshippers today. The same, affluent masses who want to destroy capitalism, reflect the Robber Barron Marx in his ungrateful hatred toward a system, which, admittedly, did very little to him personally.

With loving family, loving wife, beautiful daughters, full of love and companionship, what reason does he to destroy the system which benefited him so well? A hypocrite of the highest order, a tried and true miscreant.

As Elvis Pressley said, "You ain't nothing but a hound dog. You ain't never caught a rabbit, AND you ain't no friend of mine."

And as a kicker, he died a millionaire, free to write and unhindered.

As I was reading Agamemnon's fate, in Edith Hamilton's Mythology, I realized Mythology is a soap opera. I've read the Norse and the Greek, and I see it now. Someone is raping someone, someone is killing someone, someone is committing patricide or filicide to accomplish arcane magic. Nor do I believe that Agamemnon actually died this way. I tend to think of him as Nebuchadnezzar, and the Sack of Troy was the Sack of Tyre. Maybe some Bibliomancy was done to create it. As there is a verse in the Bible, "Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land.'" Perhaps that's just an overreaching theme in old literature, is the king returning from battle, and being slain. Perhaps because it is true. Maybe the peoples hate the war, and that is why there is regicide after coming home from a war.

The mythologies of the world were soap operas. They followed the ill reputed gods, who boasted omniscience and omnibenevolence, as they destroyed, and left wakes of ruin behind them. Setting an example to their people to follow. To rape those of lower status, to murder beloved children for magic---only, to expect recompense from the dharma of fate. For, every evil act must return an evil act. Which, is why I believe Agamemnon was Nebuchadnezzar is because that form of belief seems more consistent with the Babylonians.

That's the whole story. The gods in their dramatic wars with mortals and with one another, frolic without consequences, bringing upon the wrath of mortal and god alike. Sometimes there is a mortal who hates a god. Sometimes there is a god who hates a mortal. Whether because of rape, or because of infidelity, they seek retribution, destroying temples, bodies, while committing sodomy at times to accomplish the deed.

I see all of this, and now know what makes it interesting. I cannot write it. I know of humanity's bad nature, but I only know it from the outside. I know it from watching it, and feeling it oppress me. I know it on a crude, Global scale. I know it not intimately, anymore. When I read Ovid, I am reminded of my youth, chasing the girls around on the playground in boyish lust, like Pan and Syrinx, but that's over. That person died a long time ago. He died when I found Christ, and when I fell in love with Jorgia. An idea of love captivates me. Love actually saved me. Though it was love with a phantom, the idea of peace. What I write, I wish to capture peace. For, I tried writing my mythology, and I found it lacking the soap operatic feel and texture of a true mythology. I do not wish to make characters, populate my worlds---that author is dead, too. The imagination I had as a boy is cultured into a prosaic mind, wishing to merely find meaning. 

The King of Assyria heard a voice telling him of a rumor, I can only hope the same happens to Putin. And this war ends. Yet, I wish not to write the soap opera of kings and queens, of Putin and Elizabeth. I wish not to write the soap opera of history. My ability is waning---if I push, I might bring about another delusion. For somewhere does the material come, and I hope to comfort you with my arcane stories, and poems. I wish to give you peace with them. The waking up from a dream. But, my creative spring is tapped.

A thing in purely academic form, is usually useful. In the instance of Postmodernism, it can be used to understand a text more vividly, and lucidly. It can draw pinpoint precise critical analysis of niche themes in a text, and draw it out and extrapolate on it.

Critical Race Theory, much the same, in a purely academic form is as useful to critique real world inequalities which still exist. However, when these ideas get bled down into the general public---they lose all nuance.

Postmodernism becomes the mistaken belief that reading is a matter of one's own personal interpretation. In the realm of CRT, it becomes the idea that Blacks and Minorities are racially superior, and it instigates race riots and race war.

Both pervert law, as then that populace consensus gets adopted by academics, and the cycle repeats until there is nothing left of either theory's benefits. And all that's left is disorder, chaos and confusion.

I went down a rabbit hole, reading about Jane Austen's dedication to Prince Nash. The theory is that Jane Austen alluded to Charles Lamb in the Charade because of the words Harriet chooses. Mainly, "Mermaid, Trident, Neptune, Shark" (Sheehan).

I won't discount this theory, but merely add my input. For it to be true, there'd have to be a reference to Neptune and Trident in Charles Lamb's work. The poem "The Triumph of the Whale" has the words "Shark" and "Mermaid" in it, and seems to be about Prince Nash. But it doesn't have the word "Trident" or "Neptune" in it. So, I looked for a possible use of the word "Trident" and "Neptune" together. I found "Triton" and "Neptune" in an essay about witches, (Lamb, 76). Perhaps Jane misspelled the word from memory. Therefore, she might be calling Nash the "Prince of Darkness", and a "Witch".

Though, the connection is vague. There may be an acrostic anagram making the word "Lamb" on both stanzas (Sheehan). The evidence is quite striking. At first I thought it was specious, but there may be a connection.

My intention for writing this is respect. I love when people work to make connections like that. I attempt to add credibility to it.





Lamb, Charles. Essays of Elia. Harvard College Library, From the Family of Charles Eliot Norton, 1927. Text. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Essays_of_Elia/nXgRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=neptune. Web.

Sheehan, Colleen A.. "Lampooning the Prince: A Second Solution to the Second Charade in Emma." Jane Austen Society of North America, 2006. https://jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no1/sheehan2.htm. Web.

Here are my honest thoughts on it. If it offends you, then so be it.

In places like Mumbai or the United Arab Emirates there is a desperate need for feminism. I listen to them, and I applaud them. Using their bodies and autonomy, it is different than a cropped haired, sweaty and pig ringed feminist in America. Where, the only thing they fight for, is to grow body hair and fight a mythological patriarchy.

There are two different kinds of feminists. There were the Flappers. Who, rightly, cropped their hair and later would win the right to vote. Then, there is the piggish feminist who uses sex as a weapon to frustrate her male counterpart.

Women ought to vote. They ought to run heads of state. They ought to run businesses. Where I draw the line is at a pastor---but that is settled in my religion. It is not something I extend to the world around me. Women ought to have sports they can play---specifically for them---they ought to compete with men at chess and cards. 

What women ought not do, is fight a never ending battle to win ground and replace polygamy with misandry. They ought not divorce. They ought to remain at home if they can, and raise the children. But, so must men in my estimation. The point is, stability needs to be at home, in the family, where most of the true love is formed. Where people can grow, connect, and be close to one another.

There are feminists I applaud all around the world. In China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Mongolia... A woman in America has no right to be a feminist. All her battles are won. Anything more is merely pushing to a line that ought not be crossed. As, the gender wage gap is not real. It is, rather, explained through very real facts about being a woman. Facts that need dealt with and thought about, before a woman ever decides to have a career.

There is nothing a woman cannot do---but by personal judgment, there are things a woman ought not do. That is the culture I want. For instance, making women work, and forcing them to obtain an income is counter against the nature of womankind. Simply, there's a lot of problems created by single motherhood, and there are a lot of problems created by two parents working. There isn't enough attention given to the kids. And, they grow up to be little monsters. But, an absent father---always at work---is just as dangerous as an absent mother. In my estimation, parents need to work from home, and take care of their children. School their children. Do the bruntwork of the raising of their children. As schools do not love children like mothers do. And the most severe kind of love, is a mother's love. Separating her from her child is a crime, and forcing her to do wage labor is a crime. It's a crime. Should the woman want to do it---I see no problem with it. But, ought the woman do it, or else suffer consequences? I think that is the crux of the wage gap issue. And no... women ought not receive stipends for leaving work. They and their husbands ought to work from home, or run a family business as I've seen so often done by immigrant families.

That is my thoughts on Feminism, and if you believe it diverges off the course of the topic...  disagree. These fundamental problems are at the root of the feminist movement, and I offer common sense solutions which will work.

What does 2Pac and a Racist White Southern Scholar have in common? A lot, actually. They both believe the Civil War was not fought because of slavery, and they both probably use the slur Uncle Tom.

Let's just go down the line.

First, the Civil War was fought over Slavery. There can be no other reason for the war to be fought. Mark Twain, having joined the Rebel Army, left the army the very same day. Why? Because he was told it was about protecting the South's right to own slaves. Abraham Lincoln couldn't avoid civil war because the die had been cast. Slavery would be abolished soon. The South, forecasting those devices, preemptively started the bloodiest war in American History.

Uncle Tom, as it were, was a widely disseminated tract in support of abolishing slavery. Uncle Tom was a Christ Like Figure who died in service to his fellow blacks, dying so they could run free. Then, the war garnered such support for the abolition of slavery, that people actually joined the Union army in droves because they had read Uncle Tom's Cabin, and felt sympathy, as the work humanized black people in the eyes of white Northerners.

Also, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written for the express intent of freeing blacks. The Northerners had the song, sung the song---as did the South, but they just appropriated the song---and the North sung in the lyrics, "He died to make men holy, LET US LIVE TO MAKE MEN FREE, His truth is marching on."

Also, the reason Uncle Tom is a pejorative, is because racist Southerners created journals which stigmatized Uncle Tom, and they began making satirical plays called "Tom Plays" Throughout the South which made Uncle Tom into a racist figure. It was, for express intentions, the White Southerners who created these Tom Plays, as they were salty for having lost the war due to the enormous recruitment by the sentiment Uncle Tom's Cabin created.

Then, if that weren't bad enough, those same journals created the stigma against sentimentalism in art. Bleeding into our current situation where gaudy and grotesque and bathos and scatological art is patronized. Because beauty, and all sentiments of feelings which are pure and awesome and right have been deemed as "Kitsch" by a group of racist White Southerners looking to do as much damage as they can.

Now, the Black Lives Matter movement is a propagate of these same Racist Southerner's ideas, by calling productive Blacks "Uncle Tom", by scathing beautiful art, by hating intrinsically well formed material. 2Pac couldn't be more wrong about the Civil War. Every drop of blood spilled was in the aim of ending Chattel Slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted as a direct result of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was created because of the war.

What's truly racist, is Black Lives Matter because it is the invention of the White Southern Racism, to create a straw man, enemy image to burn down as an effigy of rage in the face of White Nationalism. Do not be fooled.

Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom's Cabin. 1852. With Introduction, Notes and For Further Reading, by Amanda Claybaugh. Barnes and Noble Books, 2003. Text.