Egregious ideas: ShaveCarruth

For all I know, Shane Carruth’s and Amy Seimetz’s recriminations are just tendentiously selective portions of the same story. Peradventure The Auteur really did flip his wig and throttle his quondam leading lady after discovering that she was cheating on him, and maybe all of his evidently insane emails and DMs to her are no worse than whatever she may have transmitted to him, other than that famous, unspecified STD.
My own conjecture is that Seimetz, eventually weary of her annual drudgery that entailed performances in two to ten features and series of limited distribution for emolument that barely paid her rent, advanced her career by bedding influential men during her engagement to Carruth. Either before or after she infected him with an venereal disease that she contracted in the course of her infidelity, maybe he berated her, slapped her around, even strangled her as she’s alleged. His deranged correspondence doesn’t indicate whether his abuse was provoked on multiple occasions by possible repeated assignations, or if it was ever even physical. However, this may be entirely wrong; however unlikely, one or both of them are in this scenario villains or liars.

Naturally, those few notables based in Hollywood (amusingly termed “the film community” by the commentariat) who’ve bespoken her allegations are predictably, prejudicially united in support of Seimetz, now a famous actress and directress after transitioning successfully from a prolific career in independent pictures to mainstream visibility during the past eight years. Carruth’s retired, a genuine independent and male, so he won’t be afforded any benefit of anyone’s doubt. Ever conformable, numerous baizuo who profess themselves “former fans” have also turned on him like Greek waiters without considering his (erratically related) account. This bias is readily evident in the forced outrage tweeted in response to his facetious, peripheral, photographic divulgence of her restraining order:

That no such furor was inflamed by his claim that she’s paid an agent to messily disseminate these in his neighborhood once again demonstrates the simple hypocrisy that defines the progressive ethos. They must #believeher; no other options exist.
Withal, a sensible man would’ve controverted Seimetz’s accusations by publishing a detailed disaffirmation, or photos that he claims image wounds she inflicted on him, rather than arguing with pissant nonentities on Twitter. The Auteur is not that man.

Anyone who’s seen Primer or Upstream Color knows that Carruth’s a multidisciplinary genius, and whoever’s read more than a few posts of his Twitter account is familiar with his mordancy, faunal preoccupations and profoundly autistic incapacity for perspicuity. Shane’s communicative opacity is often almost cryptic.

My abhorrence for Twitter is so ardent that I won’t even deign to register a trolling account there, but if I did, its username would be ShaveCarruth. Why should we shave him? Because (as declared in the account’s profile), he’s barbate ‘n’ crazed!!

Obviously, there’s only one rational application for such an account: to make the online life of Amy Seimetz’s personal assistant a living hell by tweeting and retweeting Carruth’s countercharges, parodies of his psychotic, veiled death threats, and video clips of numerous scenes in which Seimetz’s characters have been tortured and murdered to her account, which said subaltern is authorized to operate.

Just imagine…


@amy_seimetz No way you’re living without me. Remember what you said. Maybe vice versa. At least our lives aren’t dull.


@amy_seimetz One of us has photos. The other doesn’t. Think about that.


@amy_seimetz Watched this tonight. Saw it years ago. Remember? It makes way more sense to me now. That third act is hilarious, and has a few great ideas. @Simon_Barrett @ajbowen @joeswanberg


@amy_seimetz I emptied half a bottle of Stoli tonight. Jealous? Maybe you can lie as well in AA as you do to everyone else.


@amy_seimetz You should sprint more often. You know, when you’re not falling down drunk and blaming the bruises on me. Maybe life should imitate art. @Simon_Barrett @joeswanberg @Ti_West @ajbowen


Replying to @amy_seimetz and @foxesinfiction

You’re finished. You just don’t know it yet because you’re in league with the devils of Loudun, you cunt whore.


@amy_seimetz Don’t think I don’t know where you live now. @applebees down the block from you is serving Irresist-A-Bowls. Pretty long drive, so I needed one.


@amy_seimetz No way you’re invited to the reunion screening after that last court call. You’re fucking crazy. @drafthouse


Replying to @amy_seimetz

Cops can’t respond to every single fake call, especially now that their operators know the sound of your voice. I’m in your driveway. Cut the shit and come out.


Replying to @ALM_means_BLM and @foxesinfiction

Can not believe. Just shot myself in the leg, right here in my car. In Amy’s driveway. Relax. Just a BB. Can’t find it yet.


Replying to @ALM_means_BLM @foxesinfiction and 2 others

It’s probably in my sock. Doesn’t matter. I can wait out here all night.


Replying to @darqfybre

At least I’m doing something with my life, brah. Never mind. Want to get a bite tomorrow? I’m buying. Or you are. Whatever.


Wow. Kind of can’t believe that the cops came.


Replying to @When_in_Rome

She looked and sounded like a psycho, right there in front of the house. Blotto and screaming. Now the cops have a glimpse of what I lived with.


Replying to @orlandocinephile @DanBilzerian and 3 others

No charges filed. Weird, though. You’ll have to drive further than me to show me “what you can do,” Orlando.


Replying to @orlandocinephile @darqfybre and 24 others

Never happened. None of it did in the first place. Whatever. Maybe you can sit in on the next court call.


@amy_seimetz Of course you haven’t blocked me. You can’t.


Replying to @ZingularDay and 13 others

Maybe when she stops littering dockets with bullshit ROs.


You get the idea. Of course, the secondary function is to encourage Carruth to Shave:


@harrys Actually looking forward to shaving every few days. Not bad.


Replying to @masterofdisgust @ZingularDay and 6 others

I love to shave. Every day. Almost as good as new pets that just wander in.


If this were successful, Shane would shear those whiskers regularly, and we’d all enjoy that sweet, fresh-faced boy we knew and loved!

Shane Carruth (Photo by Robin Holland/Corbis via Getty Images)

Also, I might somehow convince him to surcease this footling dissipation of his time on adolescent tiffs with losers via social media (like every fifth anglophone under 50), and finally shoot A Topiary. Grow up and follow your calling, Shane.

Contemporary Lexicography Sinks to No Nadir

Yesterday, I purged numerous second-wave feminist neologisms suffixed with -woman and -person from my unparalleled personal dictionary. Furthermore, the preposterous postpositive -adjacent was newly tabulated in my Douche-English Dictionary. Some cursory research regarding this adjective’s newly daft definition led me to a strikingly (if typically) asinine article published by the New York Times, and penned by yet another of its innumerable unsightly, bewhiskered, gormless pressmen:

Why Is Everything ‘Adjacent’ Now?

What, exactly, are all these things next to?

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

Isn’t this already just adorable? If Maddox were more healthy and hirsute, and a vampire of Nosferatu’s mold, he’d perfectly resemble this clown.

As we find ourselves stuck hopelessly online, our lexicon grasps back toward the physical world. An example: The word “adjacent” has recently packed its suitcase and taken the short trip from the literal to the figurative.

Translation: numerous Anglophones under fifty are so lexically nescient (in this instance, of prefixes quasi- and semi-) that they’ve ineptly misused a word en masse.

It used to be that “adjacent” meant “next to,” as in buildings, or city blocks. These days, it is more likely to signify a more conceptual and vague relation, which the speaker or writer would rather not describe in depth.

Accurately, the extension of this word’s definition from a spatial to relational meaning only denotes its speaker’s susceptibility to trends and inability to adequately articulate.

The following nauseating, inane instances only demonstrate the subliteracy and ideological monotony of mainstream journalism:

On Christmas Day, the CNN commentator Chris Cillizza called Michelle Obama “probably the most popular politics-adjacent figure in the country.”

“Quasi-political” would be too revealing, too sincere in its rightful relegation of the former first lady and her many moronic, uninformed tirades, wouldn’t it? Just as oblivious, neoconservative boomers are the only people who can stomach the Bushes, Obama and his brood are admired exclusively by leftist cretins. I can concede that fewer people likely loathe Michelle Obama than George W. Bush, only because she’s not a criminal bellicist. Anyhow, this merely exposes how cheaply euphemistic this bilge can be.

A few months before that, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said that Megyn Kelly’s remarks on the use of blackface in Halloween costumes were “not quite racist, but racist-adjacent” and also hate crime-adjacent.

I can’t relate to anyone who’d squander a minute of his retirement sequent to a great career whining about some fatuous, faithless, televised twat, but Abdul-Jabbar would’ve sounded less dumb (though no more cogent to anyone with a functioning brain) if he’d denounced her comments as “semi-racist” or “implicitly racist.”

Some months later, Max Newfield, a writer for Heartland Weekend, a Missouri publication, took readers on a tour of “wellness-adjacent” beers available for purchase from Southern breweries. (Because beer isn’t actually good for you, no matter its adjacencies!)

Who the shit can even fathom that gibberish?

“We almost might need to write a new subsense for this,” said Peter Sokolowski, the editor at large of Merriam-Webster, of the flock of “-adjacents.”

Anyone who essays to reconcile erudite and exoteric objectives or prioritize popularity in the field of lexicography is either a pseudo-intellectual or a brazen fraud. In the two articles featured in this post, Sokolowski exhaustively confirms that he’s both.

(Subsense is dictionary-world jargon for a secondary meaning of a word.)

Those of us who actually read know that subsense is a hyponymous or otherwise subordinate division of a more general definition. We also don’t type sophomoric terms like, “dictionary-world jargon.”

The usage, he said, was “so new it’s not in the damn dictionary.”

It shouldn’t be listed in any dictionary. Of all the horrid English dictionaries in print, Merriam-Webster is the most notorious for their inclusion of any popular slang to shift a few units or attract people to their ugly, bloated website. New American Heritage is more politically correct, and poorly written besides, but Merriam-Webster has become in the past forty years the trendiest reference book available. It’s a dictionary for dopey teenagers and bottom-feeders of contemporary pop culture.

“Adjacent,” in this usage, is a postpositive adjective. That just means that it comes after the noun it modifies. This is unusual in English, but standard in French and Latin syntax.

Contributors employed by the NYT are now obliged to clumsily define postposition for the uneducated simpletons that constitute their dwindling readership. Does anyone remember when this outlet’s output was characterized by a modicum of learned assumption? I don’t, but I was born in the late ’70s.

Because the conventions of those languages can often read as fancy in English, calling something “cannabis-adjacent” or “cosmetics-adjacent” grants a nifty sheen.

Ergo, millennials striving for a veneer of sophistication once again betray their stupefying idiocy and ignorance. I’m shocked.

“Like the technical vocabulary of law and medicine, the Latin nature of this word brings the discourse up a notch,” Mr. Sokolowski said. “It makes it seem more formal and technical.”

Patently vacuous pretensions don’t elevate language or discourse, but upon observing a commercial opportunity to exploit, Sokolowski needs to palaver and pander to rubes in one of the most amenably gullible demographics.

Such shifts in meaning irk purists like Lionel Shriver, a writer who recently decried in Harper’s what she called “semantic drift.” In an interview, Ms. Shriver described her reaction to the use of “-adjacent” and “space,” another term she said was increasingly being used in a figurative sense.

How is Shriver a “purist” for opposing semantic drift of such a witless stamp? What purity is she attempting to preserve in our language’s rich and irreparable farrago?

“The weird thing is that it’s imposing geography on what could not be more abstract,” she said. “It’s almost like a need for geography in the digital world, where everything’s floating around. We’re living increasingly in a world beyond space, beyond physicality.”

This is a valid analysis, but Shriver’s perhaps abstracting too much of what may be imputed to simple stupidity, pliancy and inscience.

(Incidentally, Shriver’s novel We Need To Talk About Kevin and Lynne Ramsay’s eponymous filmic adaptation thereof are fine fiction on the disastrous repercussions of parental dereliction.)

Ben Zimmer, a lexicographer, said that he began to notice the usage more and more about five years ago. He thought it may have originated with “real-estate talk, where, say, ‘Beverly Hills-adjacent’ indicates that a property isn’t actually in Beverly Hills, but close enough.”

At least this is casually condonable, neither too silly nor inapplicable, but…

Others see the word as useful in Silicon Valley, where start-up founders can’t quite be sure what it is their companies are making, even as they’re selling it to investors. It’s best to keep options open in case the need to pivot suddenly arises. The chat application Slack, for instance, was once TinySpeck, a gaming start-up with a particularly sophisticated chat feature; it was chat-adjacent. It left the gaming space, entered the chat space and became a billion-dollar company.

Ah, more “spaces.” These are the successors of people who daily uttered neologistic, corporate portmanteaux without a trace of irony for decades.

Erik Torenberg, a founder of the early stage venture capital fund Village Global, said that he sees technology entrepreneurs use the word as if they are preparing for a similar pivot (to use their favored jargon for “change in strategy”).

Big tech is the new Hollywood: a sector as flush with lucre and avaritia as it’s bankrupt of intellect.

“When people are trying to pursue one path, that path doesn’t necessarily work so they go into an adjacent space, a space next to that path,” he said.

Christ, but the millennial’s impoverished parlance is revolting! Every phenomenon is “a thing,” every locus (be it physical or figurative) “a space.” This is a corollary of three consecutive generations composed primarily of “book virgins.”

(Mr. Torenberg said that, when it came to the frequency of the phrase’s usage, it was a seven or an eight on a scale of 10. A 10 out of 10, he said, was the term “doubleclick,” which investors use as handy shorthand for “let’s go deeper or zoom in on this topic!”)

If anyone actually verbalizes that in my presence, I’ll need to decamp.

Ms. Shriver said that “-adjacent” was probably useful in a climate where businesses were “started up in the spirit of going fishing.”

If anything, its utterance is a valuable sign by which an interlocutor’s intelligence and superficiality may be assessed.

“It’s something between angling and gambling,” she said. “Rather than setting out with a specific intention to produce a product and sell that product, it’s capitalizing on vagueness.”

I concur: sleazy marketing can’t be compassed without at least a heaping dose of ambiguity.

This post probably wouldn’t be indited if I hadn’t — by complete coincidence — chanced upon another that’s far more aggravating earlier today:

Missouri woman says she contacted Merriam-Webster to change dictionary definition of racism

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

An email from a Missouri woman has prompted Merriam-Webster to update its definition of “racism” to include the systemic aspects that have contributed to discrimination, according to a report.

Who needs standards when crumbling institutions have brainless laymen to counsel them by petition?

Kennedy Mitchum, 22, of Florissant, told KMOV-TV that she was inspired to email the dictionary publisher after getting into arguments with others about the definition.

Naturally, because she’s as overtly incorrect as brainwashed.

Merriam-Webster defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

If one were to replace, “produce an inherent superiority” with “define the comparative nature,” that definition would be correct. Not only are races (and ethnic groups thereof) distinguished by thousands of physiological differences, but all of them are in some way inferior and superior to others by virtue of their respective deficiencies and aptitudes. No other datum is so heterodox to our rotten, ruling elites, and few are so evident — hence their attempts to muddle by redefinition racism with racial supremacy, which is as banefully immoral as racism is honest.

Mitchum, a recent graduate of Drake University, felt the definition was too simple and too surface-level, according to the news station.

When aren’t collegians ruled by their irrational emotions, especially when they can’t prevail in debate?

“So, a couple [sic] weeks ago, I said this is the last argument I’m going to have about this,” she said. “I know what racism is, I’ve experienced it time and time and time again in a lot of different ways, so enough is enough. So, I emailed them about how I felt about it. Saying this needs to change.”

In clown town, acceptation must suit the disingenuous needs of some imbecile who stultifies herself in her little squabbles. Okay, hon.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,’ it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” she added.

Yeah: systematic oppression in academia and the dating market is suffered by overachieving east Asian males. That’s it. This woman will never know what oppression is unless I ascend to predominance as a powerful warlord governing the monocracy of Buchanistan. Under the heel of my dictatorship, she’d probably come to love my tyranny, if only because she’d be subjected to actual human nature.

The change comes as the United States is grappling with nationwide protests over racial discrimination following the death of George Floyd.

Whereas the original definition of racism is a person’s individual belief in the superiority of one race over another,

As explicated above, that’s a lie.

the second definition will be expanded to include the types of bias that have contributed to racial discrimination, said Peter Sokolowski, the editor-at-large at Merriam-Webster, in a statement to Fox News.

Imagine my surprise, to find this diddling peddler of substandard scrivening the following afternoon, preaching to the progressive cult’s choir.

(Of course, he’s one of these. Genuine progressives who are either attractive or intelligent are as rare as four-leaf novels.)

“Our second definition is divided to express, first, explicit institutional bias against people because of their race, and, second, a broader implicit bias that can also result in an asymmetrical power structure,” he said.

Even if he was referring to the actual systemic bias in government, academia and legacy media that promotes corporate feminists and a few largely dupable ethnic minorities, and sustains our plutarchy at the expense of everyone else, rather than Bonald Blumph’s imaginary AmeriKKKan white supremacist patriarchy, the equational leftist argument that power+privilege=racism is still wishful fantasy.

“This second definition covers the sense that Ms. Mitchum was seeking, and we will make that even more clear in our next release,” he added. “This is the kind of continuous revision that is part of the work of keeping the dictionary up to date, based on rigorous criteria and research we employ in order to describe the language as it is actually used.”

Your sales have been in the toilet for years, so you may as well keep flushing.

Look, I’m fully aware that this is probably just a publicity stunt. Who knows whether this purported email ever existed, or whether this querulent is a paid shill? However, this article does prompt certain questions. Does “rigorous research” involve the receipt of dumb emails from jaundiced, mentally challenged women as valid recommendations? Which “rigorous criteria” prescribe political trends as viable influences on a resource that’s supposed to be definitive and impartial?

Stick to Random House’s publications, which are largely dispassionate and far superior, faults notwithstanding.

Herbalife and OnePoll Partner to Feed You Bullshit

Yet another survey as biased in execution as results emerges from a private, foreign firm specializing in gainful disinformation:

Survey: More Americans Eating Less Meat, Opting For Plant-Based Options Instead
by Ben Renner

“New research shows “flexitarian” diet growing in popularity as more adults prefer to eat meat only on occasion.”

Starving gruesomely to emaciation in your suburb or city of the first world, baizuo? Flexitarianism will save your life by permitting you to ration yourself essential nutriments, only reducing you to mere etiolation!

“NEW YORK — Cheeseburgers, steaks, and hot dogs are synonymous with American cuisine, or at least they were at one time.”

Renner cuts to the chase, immediately confirming his professionalism by opining baselessly.

“According to a new survey of 2,000 Americans, if these dishes are a common part of your diet, you’re now in the minority. Less than half (47%) of the survey’s respondents said meat is a major part of their diet.”

Not an abject sap, I’m minded to question information deficiently detailed in this article. Where were a majority of these respondents located? Were American citizens in every state or most states canvassed proportionally? What’s the specific range of their ages? How many of them reside in metropolitan areas, and in which districts thereof?

This old ruse scarcely illudes anyone anymore: feed baizuo statistics about baizuo.

“The survey, commissioned by Herbalife Nutrition, found that many Americans (23%) are adopting a ‘flexitarian’ approach to eating. This means eating mostly vegetarian foods with the occasional inclusion of meat. Another 18% of respondents said they were fully vegetarian.”

Gallup also skews their polls, but here’s another they’ve produced just a few months ago asserting that “5% of U.S. adults consider themselves to be vegetarian.” Furthermore, it predicates:

“Though plant-based diets and meat alternatives have been featured in some recent high-profile forums, including the United Nations and Democratic presidential debates, and are becoming a staple even on fast food restaurant menus, the percentage of vegetarians has remained stable over the past two decades. A 1999 Gallup survey that asked the same question found that 6% of Americans identified themselves as vegetarian.”

That’s quite a discrepancy, so why should this poll be at all rated reliable?

“So, what’s fueling this shift in Americans’ eating habits?”

Widespread dysgenics spanning four generations that have engendered plummeting IQs and attendant credulity.

“Among survey participants, flexitarians were the most likely group to say their food choices stemmed from trying to be more environmentally friendly (40%) or ethical (31%).”

Slavishly trendy, baizuo still immediately believe everything their teevees and pundits feed them — forever Boomerist cattle to their trough. Ugh! Of course, the overharvest that veganism, vegetarianism and “flexitarianism” compels is hardly sustainable, and the unintentional mass slaughter of animals eventuating from such harvests exceeds that of any abbatoir, but so long as baizuo feel righteous — and especially supercilious in their unblemished, imaginary integrity — what else matters?

“Young people are also a factor; 36% of surveyed flexitarians said they adopted their new diet because their children encouraged them to do so.”

I won’t read anything more repugnant this month. If you’re actually changing your dietary habits at the advice of your glaringly inscient, imbecile offspring, you’ve failed as a parent and a human.

“Even among those still regularly eating meat, the survey shows that more Americans than ever are willing to experiment with more plant-based food sources. In all, 71% of respondents expressed this sentiment.”

How many of them were only humoring obtrusive pollsters? Given the evidence above, this percentage is as improbable to credibly relate such a majority’s inclination as any other.

“But, what about protein? For so many of us, meat is our primary source of protein, but the results of the survey make it clear there are plenty of other ways to build muscle.”

Sure, you can also victual eggs. Without consumption of meat, one omits from their diet thirty to fifty essential nutrients that can’t be otherwise obtained.

Also, who permits these doltish hacks to initiate a sentence with a punctuated conjunction? It’s the worst common solecism known to me. Just read it aloud.

Among survey participants not regularly eating meat, 65% get most of their protein from shakes and protein bars,

To live this way is to entertain supreme malnutrition. Whenever you publicly observe some gaunt, slumped, balding, barbate, misshapen goon grimacing at his iPhone or purchasing his weekly surplusage of 400+ fruits and vegetables, you can wager reliably that his protein’s derived from some saccharine swill.

“and 56% just eat other foods known to carry lots of protein like rice,

Now this article veers into pure falsehood. I love rice, but it never contains “lots of protein.”

“beans,

Why not just consume a daily allotment of plaster, if you’ve such contempt for your digestive tract?

“and soy.”

Of course! Diurnal consumption of every baizuo’s favorite protein can nearly castrate preteen boys and ensure in men enervation for dangerously low testosterone. Thanks, but some of us still expect a functioning libido, penile tumescence and procreation.

“‘Protein is an important component of every cell in the body, helping to support healthy bones, muscles and organs,’ says Susan Bowerman, senior director of Nutrition Education and Training at Herbalife Nutrition, in a statement. ‘So whether you obtain your protein from shakes, bars, animals or plants, your focus should be on the quality of the source, to help ensure your body is receiving maximum benefit'”

She can’t help but overstate by anteriority the nutritional prominence of shakes and bars. After all, Herbalife doesn’t raise cattle, and needs to shift those units!

Get it?

“Generationally speaking, millennials are the most likely age group to try out more plant-based foods,

That’s to be expected from the most ignorant generation of dupes the developed world has ever beheld.

“but across all ages more people than ever before are open to the idea.”

Oh, no overestimated percentage noting that millennials represent only 200% of all vegetarians?

“Interestingly, the survey also noted that Americans living in the West (20%) and Northeast (19%) are the most likely to frequently eat “meatless” meat.

These numbers are even more ludicrously distorted than those precedent, especially when collated. “18% of respondents [in the U.S.] said they were fully vegetarian,” but 19% of northeasterners are most disposed to eat faux flesh? If vegetarians represent 18% of the population, wouldn’t that percentage skew higher in leftist regions, where greater numbers of vegetarians are indisputably concentrated? As corporate propaganda comes, this is as sloppy as most.

“Individuals from those areas were also found to be the most open to trying plant-based foods as well (51% in the West, 55% in the Northeast).”

Yet precisely how are “plant-based foods” defined? Do these include salads, perhaps a regularly munched apple or pear?

“It’s clear that meatless meat is here to stay, with 70% of all respondents stating they believe it will continue to grow in popularity moving forward.”

We’re supposed to believe that a significant majority replied to the question of sham meat’s future popularity not with an insouciant, “Oh, I don’t know,” but positive affirmation? Sure.

“Of course, there will always be some resistant to change.

That fatuous, lordly insinuation is galling enough, but the statement is true: plenty of people, in this instance an overwhelming majority, are resistant to imprudent, unhealthy, asinine trends.

“For example, 16% of respondents said they “never” eat meatless meat.

That’s almost certainly false. I personally know only two people who’ve sampled it, both only once.

“Perhaps, though, these respondents are so hesitant because they don’t know what is inside meatless meat. Less than half of respondents (45%) knew that meatless meat usually contains soy, and only 41% knew that wheat gluten is another common ingredient.”

If so, those hitherto unaware would likely be even less apt!

“In fact, only 55% of respondents knew that meatless meat is intended to taste just like real meat. Puzzlingly, 38% incorrectly said meatless meat is grown in a lab.”

Not “puzzlingly,” but “mendaciously,” these are teetotal fabrications purposed to image for typically moronic baizuo some construct of whoever hasn’t embraced bogus beef — their mean grandfather or Richard Spencer salivating over a hamburger. “Just envision the stupid Natzees, too dumb to know that meatless meat isn’t supposed to taste like meat! If they’re so dumb, you must be real, real smart!”

“The survey was conducted by OnePoll.”

Nota bene: OnePoll‘s a British subsidiary of South West News Service whose market research consists primarily of online survey. They’ve only expanded their research to poll American, French, German, Italian and Spanish respondents in the past few years, and only do so via an iPhone app. So in light of the firm’s provenance (after Australia, the second most vegan country worldwide), the demographics who most commonly use the hardware by which they poll, Herbalife’s obviously emporeutic imperatives and the contrariety between the figures of this survey and those more reputable, as well as others which are blatantly absurd, I can’t help but speculate that this surreptitious promotion of cheap products and a slave’s diet is no more convincing than artful in its artifice.

Protected: Third-wave feminism: exhibit #3 — Vaginal Vainglory

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Ten reviews of no albums by Robert Christgau

THE CURE: Disintegration (Elektra)
With the transmutation of junk a species of junk itself, an evasion available to any charlatan or nincompoop, it’s tempting to ignore this patent arena move altogether. But by pumping his bad faith and bad relationship into depressing moderato play-loud keyb anthems far more tedious than his endless vamps, Robert Smith does actually confront a life contradiction. Not the splintered relationship, needless to say, although the title tune is a suitably grotesque breakup song among unsuitably grotesque breakup songs. As with so many stars, even “private” ones who make a big deal of their “integrity,” Smith’s demon lover is his audience, now somehow swollen well beyond his ability to comprehend, much less control. Hence the huge scale of these gothic cliches. And watch out, you mass, ’cause if you don’t accept this propitiation he just may start contemplating suicide again. Or take his money and go home. C PLUS

Obviously, this album is a classic; like The Pixies and Depeche Mode, Robert Smith’s mutable outfit contemporaneously enjoyed a concurrence of of artistic and commercial apotheosis. Christgau almost fathoms cynical marketing, but seldom music, hence this momentary meditation on Smith’s presumed careerism. The album? Who knows. Speaking of the boys from Basildon…

Violator [Sire/Reprise, 1990]
Fearing the loss of their silly grip on America’s angst-ridden teens, who they’re old enough to know are a fickle lot, they forge on toward the rap market by rhyming “drug” and “thug.” And for the U.K.’s ecstasy-riding teens, who God knows are even more fickle, there’s the techno-perfect synth/guitar sigh/moan that punctuates the easily rescinded “Policy of Truth.” C-

Somebody’s pettish dad heard a few lyrics during a strictly perfunctory spin and clumsily supposed something about “the hip-hop.” Policy of Truth is so unequivocally disposable that it was a radio staple and concert favorite for fifteen years, and nearly three decades later, oldies stations from the rancid northeast through the ‘murkun midwest to the left coast persist to broadcast it.

The Mix [Elektra, 1991]
best-of with the bass boosted–very funktional, meine Herren (“Pocket Calculator,” “The Robots”) ***

Can you imagine receipt of a paycheck for the indolent authorship of an unfunny sentence? Note that scamsters like Boesky or Madoff were actually punished. That’s a not a review. It isn’t an epigram.

Loveless [Sire/Warner Bros., 1991]
If you believe the true sound of life on planet earth is now worse than bombs bursting midair or runaway trains–more in the direction of scalpel against bone, or the proverbial giant piece of chalk and accoutrements–this CD transfigures the music of our sphere. Some may cringe at the grotesque distortions they extract from their guitars, others at the soprano murmurs that provide theoretical relief. I didn’t much go for either myself. But after suitable suffering and peer support, I learned. In the destructive elements immerse. A-

Nota bene: this maladroit fustian was penned by a man who constantly censures pop acts for their pretensions. One might surmise that it’s easier than apprehending MBV’s musicianship. As for (very little about) noise…

Daydream Nation [Enigma/Blast First, 1988]
At a historical juncture we can only hope isn’t a fissure, a time when no sentient rock and roller could mistake extremism in the defense of liberty for a vice, the anarchic doomshows of Our Antiheroes’ static youth look moderately prophetic and sound better than they used to. But they don’t sound anywhere near as good as the happy-go-lucky careerism and four-on-the-floor maturity Our Heroes are indulging now. Whatever exactly their lyrics are saying–not that I can’t make them out, just that catch-phrases like “You’ve got it” and “Just say yes” and “It’s total trash” and “You’re so soft you make me hard” are all I need to know–their discordant never-let-up is a philosophical triumph. They’re not peering into the fissure, they’re barreling down the turnpike like the fissure ain’t there. And maybe they’re right–they were the first time. A

Moore oughtn’t have fretted about Christgau; at least he was amusing when he slammed Sonic Youth, whereas this uninstructive, sophomoric, logorrheic claptrap beggars belief for a middle-aged man. He’s never worse than when he agonizes with all his little might and fails to wax profoundly florid. Whenever I read something tolerable from Christgau, my integrity itself recalls “a philosophical triumph,” and I giggle.

Heart in Motion [A&M, 1991]
Xian Xover queen: “What’s the difference between a PMS’ing woman and a bulldog? Lipstick! See, only a woman can tell that joke.” Don’t be so sure, lady. And note Hits‘s gnostic riposte: “What do you get when you cross an atheist with a dyslexic? Somebody who doesn’t believe in dogs!” C

He might’ve been generous enough to warn her fans that amid all the catchy, snappily produced hits, Hats is among the worst clunkers she’s ever recorded. Of course, the Village Voice was far too kewl and edgy to accommodate a Christer with a review, even if this consistently popular bestseller circulated far more successfully than the paper. Do consider Christgau’s recycled irreverence if you notice that year after year and album after album, he actually takes Kanye West seriously.

The Final Cut [Columbia, 1983]
Though I wish this rewarded close listening like John Williams, Fripp & Eno, or the Archies, it’s a comfort to encounter antiwar rock that has the weight of years of self-pity behind it–tends to add both literary and political resonance. With this band, aural resonance is a given. C+

I’m a Floyd fan who’s dismissed this album for decades, and terse adversion to its burden doesn’t consititute a review.

Cosmic Wheels [Epic, 1973]
Yellow Jell-O, or: didn’t you always know he’d go bananas? C-

Everyone who’s heard three to thirty-eight minutes of this knows it’s heinous, but this gibber isn’t clever.

The Bends [Capitol, 1995]
Admired by Britcrits, who can’t tell whether they’re “pop” or “rock,” and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this follow-up until it went gold Stateside, they try to prove “Creep” wasn’t a one-shot by pretending that it wasn’t a joke. Not that there’s anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke’s angst–it’s just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a ’90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all. C

It could be the last great sensitively posturing rock album, not that Christgau noticed — like any teenage quidnunc, he’s primarily concerned with industry scuttlebutt; whatever residual allusion to The Product he might tender results from whatever was heard in dereliction during routine playback in an adjoining room.

The Very Best of the Doors [Elektra, 2001]
Shaman, poet, lizard king–believe that guff and you’ll miss a great pop band. Ass man, schlockmeister, cosmic slimeball–that’s where Jim Morrison’s originality lies, and he’s never been better represented. Right beneath the back-door macho resides a weak-willed whine as El Lay as Jackson Browne’s, and the struggle between the two would have landed him in Vegas if he hadn’t achieved oblivion in Paris first. Compelling in part because he’s revolting, Jimbo reminds us that some assholes actually do live with demons. His three sidemen rocked almost as good as the Stones. Without him they were nothing. A

As an encapsulation of Jimbo’s act, it’s at least adequate, but he might’ve mentioned something about this (sixth? seventh?) studio compilation’s particular transposition. Even capsule reviewers aren’t paid to blithely expect, “They’ve heard it all, so they pretty much know what they’re getting, I guess.”