George Orwell's 1984 is a pile of shit

With deep, solemn sorrow, I am informing you, oh dear reader, that, in this sometimes-yellow, sometimes-blue century we're living in, the book "1984" has become a synonym for fascism and dystopia. And isn't that, in itself, a dystopia of sorts?

I mean, seriously, what the fuck are we thinking? We glorified this pile of shit book? Let's start with clearing the premises, there is so much horse shit in one place, it's hard to begin working with it.

First, the writing style. This shitty style gives this book a feeling that you are reading Cosmo or a cooking magazine. It's like stagnant water. With a buffalo horde passing through, and shitting wherever they feel like. George Orwell has no idea how to establish pacing, or control the atmosphere with dynamic and lively sentences. Don't fucking tell me, that this is the point of the style! I don't want to hear. If the "point of his writing style" (non-existent) was to feel like a coloring book, that isn't the peak of human achievements in literature, and it should be burned. The events in the book, they don't feel, they just happen in a boring manner. It is as forgettable as a sitcom moment. It doesn't matter what's going on, it is the same, dull, prolonged stream of shit, slowly coming out of a constipated elephant ass.

Next, the characters. Considering this is a 21st century pop literature work, you won't expect much, assuming you had the patience to read more than 50 words of this shit. And you won't be surprised, these characters hold nothing unique or interesting, and they resemble a "fill" character you'd meet in a good book, that appears only once, and exists only to fill space by talking to the main character, as the writer is building tension for something bigger behind the curtains.

But, the worst part, is, obviously, the ideology of this book. It is an alternative future, where time is stuck in one place, and people keep getting dumber in order to maintain low-middle-high class structure. This way, time freezes, and humans are numbed to work assets, existing for no reason.

What Mr. George failed to realize, is that, a society like this is impossible. There will never be a society which doesn't favor intellect and improvisation. The same reason a society like this can't be, are found in our very own history, our breakthrough from the dark ages. It may be centuries, while we are stuck in a dark age, and in that dark age, ancient art will be sacrificed, but, intellect and individualism will always prosper, in the end. George Orwell is telling us to act, as if we are threatened by a mass government brutality, forcing us to obey, or die. However, he is too blind to see, that exterminating a characteristic, such as individuality is impossible, mainly because he didn't have it. He acts as if his world has a solution for every type of act an individual can take. Well, fear not, if you are able, you will never have to fear such environment, it won't happen.

The last thing I dispute, is the leading quote throughout the book, line by line:

"War is peace" - those are just antonyms, you haven't said anything of essence. The retarded explanation in the book doesn't make up for it.
"Freedom is slavery" - same, more pseudo-intellectual garbage for retarded teenagers to post on social media.
"Ignorance is strength" - not only did Orwell not say this first, but it's also a very easily disputable quote. If ignorance was strength, then, you would not have been reading his book in the first place. It is supposed to imply something else, but, really, don't look for it. There is no depth, anyway, it is just something repeated a lot throughout the book to make it seem intelligent.

Yea, don't read this, if you want anything of philosophical, political or literature meaning or art. Bye.

The ways and means of the two-party system as seen in America.

Most of the people that would read this would find nothing new in the text, they know what it will be all about in the title, just expressed differently. However, we are still living in a society of drooling morons who is willing to be slandered and is unable to see through the ulterior motives. In my opinion, this is because flocking is a natural human survival instinct, and seeing through what a "sheep" would do is much harder than a piece of paper. The case, here, however, is more severe. It is not a matter of just being a sheep or not, sometimes it is just a matter of being unable.
Here, you will find, what the methods are of the two-party system in America, and how the two parties are actually just best friends, regardless of what you see in the election statistics and outside.

Method 1: Making the individual oblivious to a third option.
I know that I sound like a broken record, but this is performed in a way that many people fail to see through. The main tactic here is the question "What if the other wins, what then?" This mollifies the initial, true instinct of rejecting both options and in this confused state of mind, you make a mistake and go out to vote and, even support the motherfuckers. X is worse than Y, in reality, however, doesn't work because of the fact that the main tool for a politician to success is the people, not himself. They aren't shit without you, don't wear the wrath of the second candidate's ignorance. The individualists always prosper, don't flock!

Method 2: Pushing a negative policy in the agenda among the ones that are supposed to be "good".
This is so classic, yet we want to be ignorant to this politician ingenuity. It doesn't matter what campaign you supported, with little, almost invisible letters, in the agenda, you will find evil. You decide to let it slip because you feel that you'll let a greater evil otherwise. Don't!

Method 3: Forcing you to feel that you need to stand behind your decision.
The politician is a fox. If you are a fucking retarded 250kg pig, you won't catch him and he'll steal your dinner. You are not obligated to stand behind what you said about a politician. You are fighting against a mind with no principle or ethics, if you chose to vote or said something, reevaluate the situation. Don't be stubborn!

So, that is all I feel like saying, I have more thoughts, but fuck it, if the first paragraph was not enough, nothing will be. To wrap everything up, all I will add is two things: Twelve angry men and look for initiative in different places.

Proving that Pink Floyd has no depth, Part Three: The Dark Side of the Moon

You got me this time. There is nothing wrong with this album. Not sarcastic or joking, it is a legitimately good piece of rock music? Do you know why is that?

-Because it contains the least amount of crappy David Gilmor solos. 

No other reason. It still can't match any other rock classic, but that is not that important, I can actually listen to this one. It didn't bring anything new to rock music, but it isn't downright horrible over-the-top mediocre bullshit like their other "masterpieces".

The lyrics, as always, are shitty, the worst are "Money", "Breathe" and "Eclipse", which are basically generic uninspired young adult poetry about their respective subjects. If you are shallow it might make you feel heuristic reading them, have fun and fuck you.

Believe it or not, there is a goddamn exception. "Eclipse". The only lyrically non-ephemeral piece is finally, a breakthrough from boring workplace chatter, it talks about something about being crazy or whatever, but reading through it is great fun. The ending is frivolous, but at least it isn't like The Wall.

Forgetting about this album is also, very easy, thank fuck. It doesn't infuriate because of some classless pseudo-intellectual element, and it doesn't make your head hurt with 25 of the same solos. I really appreciate this, I can say it is at least, on the same level as Imagine Dragons. 

I have to compare these bands more, now that I think of it. Both have enough rock elements to make them rock, and both lack the character, only breaking through on very rare occasions, and what remains is just the image of a person, in the shower, pissing towards the ceiling and hitting his mouth, achieving nothing.

To finish off what will probably be a 3-part series, since I can't be assed enough to check out "Animals", I have to say. You know, the band that wrote "Have a cigar", the one that doesn't sell out and just wants to be understood by teenagers? They keep removing their shit from the internet. Pink Floyd has a collective net-worth of over $5.000.000 however, YouTube and losing some twenty thousand dollars is a painful hit to their rocker life-style of buying houses and doing boring old-people shit.

Поезија за детството

У нашето маало,
Кога бевме мали,
Има едно будало,
У женски партали.

Сите не замараше,
Никој не го ферма,
Секој го шамараше,
Пропаднана сперма.

Еден ден ми дума,
Вошливата чума,
У шумата да идам,
Со него да се видам.

Сам тамо го гледам,
Со него зиам, седам,
Кажува дека ме сака,
Подава ми десна рака.

Тамн да ме гушне,
И јазико да си мушне:

Акнам го еден бокс,
Зиам една даска,
Рендам му ја од грбо,
Крв му тече од сегде.
Писка како пичка.
Клима на едно колено,
Сака да избега,
Давам му да се оддалече
И зиам еден камен,
Погодам го у главата,
Плсине крв како фонтана,
И леже така така пет минути.

После ние дознавме,
Откоа се врнав главен,
Дека додека спавме,
Најделе го удавен.

Те шо се десило,
Откоа си ојдевме,
Вака и вака било,
Од заедно коа бевме.

Мајка му ко кара,
Да уче повише бара,
Нема кој да го теше,
На ортомата се реше.

Плаче се кај капелата,
Фацта, модра целата,
Мајка му демек чекала,
Од таков гад не спала.

После покасно там седеме,
Треба још бајки да редеме.

Ојде си оваа мајка му,
Набутаме се раздавулки,
Зиаме еден по еден,
Мочаме и плукаме по гробо,
Заебаваме се тамо у темно,
До полноќ само крекање,
Кажуваме кој дека го ударал,
И каков токат го залепил,
Заебаваме се и за мајка му,
Оти е крава дебела смотана,
Разведела се со маж и,
Оти и он бил такво обрнано,
Уште маленки, а викаме си,
Абе со такви смрдежи,
Така само, да им се мочам,
У племето у газ праено.

Најди акорди, „Ја го ебам законо“

1
Не те ебам два посто,
И се шо ми баратеш,
Со глупи филозофии,
Само куро клатеш,

2
Још ле не е јасно,
Шо ќе се дешава?
Искочи надвор и
доста куро маваш!

3
Овоа ми е оче наш,
Овоа е молење,
Ако стегаш путката,
Че дое до болење!

4
Не стаам кондоми,
Оти не ми е убаво,
Нека биде шо биде,
Само клецај право.

5
Нека забремене,
Мисли си ќе плаќам,
Нош у абдомено,
И по друга пичка фаќам!

6
Ако мислеш дека делам
Малолетни и венчани,
Наведни се малце,
И за куро ми се фани!

7
Ебам ли ви закони,
Ќе ебам шо ќе стигнам,
Не сам ја смотан,
Само една да дигнам!

8
Еден закон важи,
Ако дупчето е тесно,
Лизга горе доле,
И свршувам ногу лесно!

РЕФ
Ја го ебаааам законо,
НЕЛЕ Е ЈАСНО?!
Ја го ебаааам законо,
ИЗЈАСНИ СЕ АЈДЕ!

1
У уставо се мочам,
У библијата свршувам,
На возвишени чуства,
Ќерките ги мувам!

2
Ја лично би исклал,
Се шо мож да дума,
Ама оргазамо е тај,
И леш да е од чума!

3
И вените ќе бодам,
Џигерите нека литат,
Оти ми е по куро,
Ако сакат нека питат!

4
Ќе крадам од црвен крст,
За да купам дрога,
Доста држеш јајца,
Оти баба ти е строга!

5
Ќе ги лажам моите,
И пари ќе им џапнам,
Само оти ми дојде,
Печурки да си лапнам!

6
Од пријателите ќе зеам,
Колку имат книжни,
Колатерална штета тоа,
А не другари ближни.

7
Ќе запалам се шо видам,
Ќе уништам се шо гледам,
Не сам копеле глупо,
Па се стандард да следам!

8
Нека ми најдат трупо,
У смрдлива хотелска соба,
Забравете ме ако сакате,
Ама овоа е мојта доба!

РЕФ

What tolerance is, and why it's a bad thing

The first definition of tolerance you get when you use google

Today, being tolerant, is a characteristic that is looked up upon. The absolute low point of humanity. Fuck. Just look at the definition. The first problem is, that being tolerant is being treated as a characteristic. Firstly, being "tolerant" is not something I have to be, because it's not a characteristic, but a decision I have to make based on your opinion or behavior.

However, politicians imply that tolerance is a necessity in a society, and that it is a fundamental value. Refer back to the dictionary example. it says "the tolerance of corruption". Being tolerant doesn't just mean being a liberal and having nothing against gays and black people. Being tolerant, means, that, if a faggot sticks it up your ass while you are sitting in your home and watching TV, you decide to tolerate his behavior, and pretend to enjoy the experience.

Tolerance, in a society, as a whole, means accepting every value. Think, just please do, for a moment, is this possible? Do you think that a society like that can persist. No, because, the word you are looking for, is acceptance.

Acceptance is much different from tolerance, because, if I am accepting something, as a value, or someone as a member of a society, I have considered their opinions, their ways of life, and their direct effect on me, to be good. Maybe, I have considered them as negative, but I decided to tolerate them. This doesn't bring me an obligation to tolerate everything else. This is a logical path to making a decision for one society, deciding something because we are being tolerant leads to an undeveloped miserable shithole, eventually it leads to having no money for food, and eventually to the death of a society.

What you are looking for, is a highly tolerant society. This may be a radical view, but, it may have valid arguments. Now, I am not well versed into shitty liberal ideas to know better, but I am going to explain, how a highly tolerant person, can't persist in a society.

A highly tolerant person, in every society, and in this one, is called a wimp. This is a person who is okay with every decision, unable to stand up for themselves. Tolerance is something you use, while making decisions, in order to avoid arguments or rarely, improve your further position.

The highest form of tolerance is tolerating something because of good will, karma, morality, whatever. This has its limits. You don't tolerate someone pointing a gun at your head, do you? Setting this boundaries very high, going as far as tolerating someone that is an expense to the government, meaning, your tax money is no different. To create and to be, a man first must persist, to persist, he must act. Not acting is called tolerance. Being highly tolerant is therefor, absurd in the concept of existence.

Proving that Pink Floyd has no depth, Part Two: The Wall

There is no better way to trigger hipsters than to not accept Pink Floyd as the greatest rock act, ever. But, it's really hard to argue with them, take into consideration that their knowledge of literature is based on Paulo Coelho, or some other retard, the kind that uses sentences like "She saw him in the club, for the first time ever. He was wearing his Armani shirt...". Arguing that the lyrics suck is obviously a waste.

But, out of the four endurance rounds, commonly known as, the best 4 Pink Floyd albums, this is by far the easiest to shit on. Why? Because Quadrophenia. Please, if you are going to tell me to go lay in front of a train, please, at least take a listen to Quadrophenia. Remember, 1979 - 1973 = 6. This is an album that came 6 years before this pile of shit. You probably don't know what The Who is, and you probably never will, because, you have already fucked off from here, because you still think Pink Floyd is the greatest rock band.

What The Who did with Quadrophenia, Pink Floyd did worse. This includes:
  - Lyrics about social exclusion;
  - Repeating words, or parts of the song, to imitate the feeling of nostalgia;
  - A concept album, which tells a story (To Pink Floyd fans, The Wall is the first concept album ever);
  - Music.

But you know what? Whether Pink Floyd knew about this album, or whether they took influence from it, is completely irrelevant. Because this album is simply a pile of shit. It would have been a pile of shit if it was released in the 9th century, when by music, people meant non-coherent priest chanting. This is a deviation, from the standard bullshit that is Pink Floyd, which is just mediocre.

The album tells a story of a kid whose father dies in the war, this leads him to a life of not having a male role-model, which ultimately leads to him not being socialized and blowing his brains off. And I have to bring this up again, because it really pisses me off, but, The Who talked about the exact same thing, including more. Eventually, I am going to write an article about why Quadrophenia is great, so I don't have to bring this up 10 times.

The most popular song here, is unsurprisingly, Another Brick in The Wall. This song is deep because Pink Floyd hired children to sing and it has a music video against education. This comes as no surprise, as anybody who has educated himself, would be able to write better lyrics.

The best song on the album is Goodbye Blue Sky, which is ruined by the "ooh babe, babe" part, but at least it doesn't go below the usual Pink Floyd standard of mediocrity.

To end, I'd just like to mention that this album cover is the most distasteful, irritating pile of shit that came out of album covers. This is to make you think it's deep, because the important part, is really the music. However, because a Pink Floyd fan is braindead, it hasn't occurred to him, not even once, that he might be buying an album for the music.