Banned: The Grapes of Wrath

John Steinbeck loved to tell the story all his life: When enraged California growers decided to publicly burn his book detailing the mistreatment of farm workers, they had to special-order the book because there were no copies to be had.

It wasn’t just the growers that Steinbeck annoyed: The famous climactic scene made the Godly mad, too.

Petulant and imbued with an inflated sense of self-importance, Rose of Sharon is the least likeable of the characters. A young newly-wed, she and her husband spend the journey to California giggling softly and dreaming of the possibilities of their new life. Her constant concern is that everything that happens to the family is related somehow to her unborn child, a concern that quickly becomes annoying. Despite her mother’s interventions, Rose of Sharon draws increasingly into her own self-pity as the family’s hardships mount. The bearing of her stillborn child, however, brings about a change in her character. Her breasts are full of life-giving milk and with no child to nourish, Rose of Sharon chooses to reach beyond her own considerations for the first time. She offers her milk to a stranger, a man dying of starvation. With this act, Rose of Sharon comes to represent the full circle of human unity: Despite her own position of need, she is able to give life.

Decent people, as everyone knows, don’t acknowledge that women have breasts.

Steinbeck went on to become a Nobel Laureate, and his acceptance speech included this memorable smack at his critics:

Literature was not promulgated by a pale and emasculated critical priesthood singing their litanies in empty churches — nor is it a game for the cloistered elect, the tin-horn mendicants of low-calorie despair.

The Sacramento Public Library will present a public reading from the book this evening, and a panel discussion of its subsequent history of censorship.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Will to Power

Book One: History of European Nihilism
II: Nihilism

§79   The modern spirit’s lack of discipline, dressed up in all sorts of moral fashions. — The showy words are: tolerance (for “the incapacity for Yes and No”); la largeur de sympathie ( = one-third indifference, one-third curiosity, one-third pathological irritability); “objectivity” (lack of personality, lack of will, incapacity for “love”); “freedom” versus rules (romanticism); “truth” versus forgery and lies (naturalism); being “scientific” (the “document hurnain”: in other words, the novel of colportage and addition in place of composition); “passion” meaning disorder and immoderation; “depth” meaning confusion, the profuse chaos of symbols.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Listen in

Jeri Massi has created a Web page for publishing her interviews with abuse survivors, and commentary, here. I’ve listened to much of this material through the years, and it’s affecting stuff.

What is striking is that, though Jeri and I of course disagree on some big questions, we’re in total agreement on the evil documented in these recordings: It inheres in the teachings, and is the inevitable outcome. So listen in; I advise small doses, though.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Who knew?

It turns out that ISIS is just a manifestation of the Homosexual Agenda.

Abu Ala’ made a fatwa permitting himself to marry and sodomize his recruits, with the exception that no man can sodomize him.

ISIS is truly the manifestation of the purest form of the homosexual agenda: sodomizing men as both torture and pleasure, and killing those who disagree with them.

The incredible testimony confirms a documentary broadcasted on August 27th on the Kurdish station STERK TV, it was said that ISIS has been raping men in a ceremony it describes as “marriage” and records them to use as blackmail and force them to join.

It’s just exactly like I keep telling y’all: These yahoos are their own best satirists. And, by the way, what are we to make of all those heterosexual rapes? I am really puzzled now.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Banned: Elmer Gantry

Would y’all be surprised to learn that the Pious were some kind of upset when Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry was published?

Mark Schorer, a leading biographer of Lewis, describes what happened next: “The book, to the great advantage of its sales, was immediately banned in Boston….” It was also banned in Kansas City, Mo., Camden, N.J. and other cities. Public libraries would not stock it, and many booksellers announced that they would not carry it.

The popular evangelist Billy Sunday called Lewis “Satan’s cohort” and threatened to beat him up. Others favored legal action. Schorer writes that “one cleric suggested that a prison sentence of five years was clearly in order.”

A few outraged people lashed out directly at Lewis. The writer received a note inviting him to observe a lynching in Virginia – his own.

Some were able to find a little humor in the situation. Will Rogers wrote to The New York Times, “When I am playing in a town and it looks like there is not going to be much of a house, I announce through the papers that that night I will read passages from Elmer Gantry, the Baptist sheik, and the house will be packed with Methodist and Presbyterian women.”

Lewis was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, of course, proving once again — As if proof were needed!! — that the secular world is wicked-wicked-wicked-WICKED.

Posted in General | Leave a comment