Just a moment…on the validity of American Naturalism and the secret lives of their American sons and daughters.

As we get closer to our goal I am reminded of a past where I could chart a course and never thin the payoff. Every reward was fat and handsome. Time was sterile and obsolete. I never understood hesitation or doubt. It never made any sense to me and it sure as hell never got anybody anywhere. The only road ahead was shrouded in a haze. The fog so dense that it hid things inside of it: Secrets. Secrets could make a man crazy, turn a womans head, and bring thriving empires to their knees. Secrets raided man’s fear of god and in turn swept a chilling cold over the landscape. I never cared much for secrets. One man’s secret is another man’s dead end. “Ain’t no use in turnin’ over stones ‘less you’re gonna build the empire state building under ‘em, mh’m”, my grandpop used to say. The idea seemed quite ridiculous, but I could muster enough courage to ask him how many stones I’d have to turn over before grandmom  told me to come inside before I catch cold. “The pieces all fit together in the shape of a puzzle” he went on and on about laying foundations, pouring concrete, measuring reinforcement wire and the lot. I never really gave a damn, ‘cept to say that my grandpop was the meanest toughest son ofa gun that ever did pick a shovel up off the dirt and call it his.

There’s a quote I read once that said “fuck quotations, what do you think?” or something like that – anyway, I believe the great American naturalist Ralph Waldo Emerson said it. I realized after reading it that I’d spent too much time on the internet, but what really stuck out to me was the fact that Emerson didn’t catch his own mistake. A man makes an obscenely bold statement about not listening to famous thinker’s quotations and expects people to not see the hypocrisy. Emerson was either a genius or an idiot with a pen because deliberately leaving a blindspot in your own argument can mean many different things. For instance, it could mean that Emerson thought that the human race had reached a particular climax of human ‘achievement’, ‘wonder’ or otherwise awe-inspiring civility OR it could just mean that he had the tenacity to don himself as a thinker who would be quoted albeit with some foreshadow, adding a certain dramatic flair to his life and separating himself from the survivalist nature of Thoreau. Why should he pivot in the opposite direction? Probably because people were beginning to pin the two thinkers together who merely lived at the same time period and shared many similar interests, beliefs, transgressions, etc AND he couldn’t bare to have HIS ideas blended, as it were, with the ideas of another man. The thought alone probably left him in a cold sweat and with a painful headache. However, the same could not be said of Thoreau who went to some other more painstaking, death defying obstacles to clear his name of any other syllogism with like minded thinkers. One stuck to the profane the other to the mundane perhaps, but neither will we know the truth because as we understand history and “American themes” we clump many white boys together under the umbrella of naturalism and throw a sugar coating of existentialism for good measure when in fact we are dealing with, or rather, they were dealing with the principles of owning property and being a vote-casting, tobacco chewing citizen of the United States Gov’t (all in good fun). Where else would we have understood the importance of civil disobedience. As we cross the boundary, the humanistic elements of said characters come into the spotlight. They were in search of what makes a man a man. A man – a human being with a penis who may come in many different colors and who more often than not shaves his face, among other places on his body, and indulges in the politics of freedom. When a slave is no longer a slave, but a man with a purse and a coat pocket, time piece and a tobacco pipe, he is bound to question his freedom and the limitations therein. John Adams was a free man, a lawyer, wealthy and a subject of the crown. He did not indulge in the politics of freedom quite like Thoreau or Emerson, because he was all too familiar with the reality of slavery, the crown, etc,etc. However, Thoreau, in his moss hut, sucking back boiled water and frogs legs, descended upon an idea that could move institutions and people alike. He guided his pen into questioning the validity of the government. To break the government down just enough to ask if the wording really included the stamp of an imaginary man in the sky. Does god really have the final say? If us mere humans refuse the birth child of 30 or so men, will god come down and punish us? Tough to say… I think for the most part it is irrational to believe that practicing one’s civil duties would result in feedback, negative or otherwise from an imaginary person. Having said that, I think we can legitimately attest negative consequences of our actions on earth to other earthly matter such as the hell bent souls of ignorant and brave individuals, as well as the trade winds and natural disasters including but not limited to brush fires and hurricanes. Whatever the case maybe, American life is simply too great a series of occurrences to pin on one person – be he alive, dead or living in the stucco walls of my airbnb. Furthermore, the U.S. government was created for one sole purpose: to make more money off of the slave and tobacco trade. Adieu! My good sirs’!



What do Pirates eat for breakfast?


Not to be confused with music enthusiasts with half a brain.

I’m talking about the ol’ skull and crossbones stock.

A bit of background *ahem*: Spain’s Charles II was ill and o his death bed so naturally the European powers were forced to think about how would get control of Spains land. So, Charles II’s daughters , who would ordinarly have claim , had waivered the right by marrying sons of Leopold (Holy Roman Emporer) and Louis XIV. Now that left everyone in a bit of a bind. So, A treaty of partition of offered to grant The French strategic areas in Italy as well as spanish netherlands and a few other places while Leopold would get Everything else.

that didn’t sit too well with leopold, as he needed those italian points (notably milan) to protect his southern flank from the ever present Ottomans. So he denied the agreement and Charles II named the grandson of Louis XIV to take the title as the would be heirs reclaimed right to the French throne.

Well, this pissed of the English because they already don’t like france very much, and even less when in control of the entire spanish empire. So, pretty much everyone was pretty upset about this french-spanish tryst and the english teamed up with the dutch to settle the score. Germans saw an opportunity to take back alsace and lorreine, and Leopold I just kinda hung out and whatever.

The Spanish needed to protect their resources and France was a cheap ally, but cheap allies don’t come free.


well, the English signed a bunch of letters of marque to seafaring mercenaries during this time, and a bunch of them ended up in the west indies, naturally, and became PIRATES.

The Spanish needed protected their Florida and Caribbean investments. England needed to protect their colonies from the creepin’ French in the north.

Pirates were the tobacco ash in the greatest chess game the world has ever played.

In the first few weeks of the voyage, pirates would eat eggs, fish, meat, fruits, veggies, whatever. They would even combine all of it to make Salmagundi. When that ran out, they’d turn to salted or pickled meat and eventually sea biscuits or hard tack with and without weevils.

And when that ran out, they ate bone soup (broth made from bones from sea turtles or whatever they could find).

The pirates life was also a homosocial one, particularly comprised of young men. So, it might not have been uncommon for a pirate and his mate to eat each other’s cum or ass.



The pirates life was no all inclusive resort, but then again, it never is.