On the Beauty of the Ukelele

On the Beauty of the Ukelele

When I seek to fly…I listen to beauty of the ukulele. A simple piece of wood, containing an angel. The calming power of her strings. Oh the irony…that something so tiny can transport a giant to the clouds!

God bless the ukelele.  She’s a light on the Highway of Despair, leading us to the Bed of Salvation. She’s the gatekeeper at the Door of Tranquility.  Listen to the sound of a child smiling! Hear the music of a heart dancing, lost in the embryo of innocence!

Is there a God on earth? If so, HE is sleeping on the strings of a ukulele.

See Related Article: Who is the Most Successful American Musician of All Time?

 

Advertisements

Movie Review: Colao

Movie Review:  Colao

Colao is a Dominican movie, similar to The Last American Virgin. It’s about a coffee grower, single and turning 40, that decides to search for the one thing he is missing in life: love. It was written by Jose Alama and Jose Pastor and released in November of 2017.

Here is a small trailer of the film.

Overall, Colao is a funny and warm-hearted movie. However, the film presents a dangerous lie – the idea that a poor man and a rich woman can fall in love. Therefore, men should be cautious when watching this film: i.e. enjoy the film, but disregard the theme(s).

Summary

We see the main character, a poor coffee grower named Antonio, leaving his home in the Dominican countryside. He heads to the capital city of Santo Domingo. There, we see the comedic tropes that have been used in countless films: i.e. the country bumpkin, stumbling through the modern world. And of course, it works again. Many laughs come from the protagonist trying to negotiate in a cosmopolitan city.

Eventually, Antonio falls is love. However, the woman (named Amarilis) happens to be part of the upper-class elite: a well-to-do lawyer that’s attractive and single (played by the talented Shailyn Sosa). Despite their socio-economic differences, the two hit it off. They fall in love and begin a whirlwind romance.

However, the conflict emerges in classic Aristotelian fashion.  Antonio is caught in a lie, putting their relationship in doubt. Eventually, the situation is rectified. The couple are reunited, their past troubles behind them, and they live “happily ever after.”

manny and amarilis
The poor farmer “gets” the rich socialite in the movie Colao.

Analysis 

The film presents a dangerous lie – the idea that a poor man and a rich woman can fall in love. Newsflash: Women are biologically incapable of loving a man that’s below them in social status (see the definition of hypergamy). For example, the secretary is usually sleeping with her boss and not the custodian of the building. The male teacher is dating a former female student…and on and on. I can list a thousand more examples in this regard. This fact is painfully obvious to anyone with a working pair of eyes.

hypergamy
The film Colao ignores the harsh reality of hypergamy.

*Note: Sometimes, in rare cases, a poor man and rich woman are together. However, there are usually extenuating circumstances attached to this coupling: i.e. he has an exceptionally large penis, she has baby rabies, etc. But these cases are the minority. And many times, these relationships end when the goal has been fulfilled.

Conclusion

Men should be cautious about the message of this film. Life is not a fantasy world, where unicorns fly out of a cotton-candy factory. Life is a battle of blood and guts, fought in Thunderdome cage. Therefore, men should continually seek to improve their sexual market value: i.e. get a college degree, start a business, gain wealth, etc. Only then will they be able to expand their pool of female prospects.

I recommend Colao as a piece of mindless entertainment. It has a few good laughs and gives you a nice, warm feeling. However, in terms of realism, it misses the mark.

See Related Article: Book Review: The Last Playboy by Porifrio Rubirosa

 

On the Greatness of Mel Gibson’s Hamlet

On the Greatness of Mel Gibson’s Hamlet

The gravedigger scene of Hamlet is, in my opinion, the greatest scene in all of Shakespeare. The depth of the moment, the poetry of the lines…wonderful.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning?

Many actors have taken on the role. However, in my opinion, Mel Gibson did a fantastic job. His emotional delivery was great. His body language, artistic. In short, he captures the idea perfectly: a man grieving at the loss of an old friend.

Hollywood loves to trash on Gibson. His “anti-semetic” rants were over the top, perhaps. But who hasn’t had a salty conversation off camera? Who hasn’t spoke ill about a group of people before? Show me somebody that raises their hand, and I’ll show you a liar.

At any rate, here’s the clip. Gibson jumps right in Hamlet’s consciousness, taking us to a different time and place.

See Related Article: Poetry Review: A Critique of “August 1968” by W.H. Auden

How the Song “Ocean Front Property” Shows the Difference Between a Male and Female Listener

How the Song “Ocean Front Property” Shows the Difference Between a Male and Female Listener

Ralph Murphy, the Vice-President of ASCAP,  has a lot of wisdom on music. One of his most interesting points is that men and women process a song differently; in short, men “hear” the lyrics, whereas women “listen” to them.

The point is exemplified in a song called “Ocean Front Property” by George Strait (a former #1 hit on the country chart). When I first heard the chorus, I thought it was stupid: “I got some ocean front property in Arizona”.

“Impossible!” said the Major. What the hell is he talking about? How can you have ocean front property in Arizona?

ocean front
The Major thought of this when he heard, “I got some ocean front property in Arizona.”

Years later, I watched a video of George Strait and Kenny Chesney. They were singing “Ocean Front Property” at Texas Stadium; coincidentally, it was the largest single-show concert in the history of the United States – 104,793 in attendance. At any rate, the first thing I noticed were the women. They all knew the lyrics to the verse, and they were singing along emphatically.

So I went back and read the lyrics again:

If you leave me
I won’t miss you
And I won’t ever take you back
Girl your memory
Won’t ever haunt me
Cause I don’t love you
Now if you’ll buy that…

Now the song made sense. The verse shows a man who doesn’t love a woman, while the chorus exposes the verse as a lie. In short, he’s still madly in love with her. It’s a theme that can be stated in the following ways:

  • “Girl, I want you back”
  • “My baby done left me”
  • “Woman I miss you”

How many other songs have a similar theme? Literally thousands. So what makes “Ocean Front Property” a number one hit? Well, a number of things…but perhaps the most important this is the following – it repeats a popular theme in a unique way.

Most men, like myself, will listen to the song and hear the beat or chorus. Conversely, most women listen to the lyrics to the entire song. When they do, they find a pleasing message: an old flame is still thinking of them, aching over “what might have been.” Because women can relate to that. Most women know a man “got away “: a man they loved, but were unable to keep.

Nashville songwriters are the best in the game. They know their audience (women) and they craft messages that speak to them. In the case of “Ocean Front Property,” three people wrote the tune: Dean Dillon, Hank Cochran, and Royce Porter. There is strength in numbers, indeed.

The words of Ralph Murphy are so true: men and women process a song differently; men “hear” the lyrics, whereas women “listen” to them.

See Related Article: How Rhyme Schemes and Pronouns are Used to Create a Hit Song

 

Parental Investment is the Bedrock of Financial Success

Parental Investment is the Bedrock of Financial Success

A few nights ago, I was speaking to a poor woman. She was from a ghetto section of Latin America: aka, the “barrio.” Eventually, she told me something about her family:

Her father had 22 children.

  • Jokingly, I said “He must be rich.”
  • She rolled her eyes. “We never had anything growing up. And I still have nothing. He was never around anyway”

Academics love to speak on poverty. They say that it’s about racism. Or the say that it’s about corruption. Some even believe it’s a mindset: i.e. if we think positive, then we can become rich.

confusion
This is you…listening to the “experts” on the causes of  poverty.

Wrong! The truth is obvious, but it’s too offensive to say: it’s too impolite to mention. Let’s do away with the pretty lies…

Parental investment is the bedrock of financial success.

In the United States, we snicker at the idea of “a house with two kids.” We make it sound predictable and staid. Why be normal? Why follow the crowd? It’s better to be Carrie Bradshaw, bouncing between one-night stands (just ignore the venereal disease and the Cymbalta). Eventually, the game is old. You realize (or at least you should) that you’re living a lie. Hollywood has preyed on you, and you’ve rejected a prize.

And what’s the prize? Well, just look below…

two kids
More of this equals less poverty. It’s pretty simple.

Two parents, working together, provide a solution to poverty. They dedicate their time and resources to raising healthy children. And these children are more likely to become productive members of society. It’s basic. A simple reality, noted by every major religion.

Parental investment is the bedrock of financial success.

See Related Article: On the Dangers of Sophistry

Book Review: 200 Years Together by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Book Review: 200 Years Together by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Alexander Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969. He became a darling of the American conservative party, providing a first-hand account of Communist atrocities in the Soviet Union. His book The Gulag Archipelago became an international best seller and he was widely applauded.

But then he fell out of favor.

solzhi
Solzhenitsyn became a literary hero when he criticized the Russian government.

His 2001 book, 200 Years Together, was a expansive two-volume historical essay, discussing the role of Jews in communist Russia. Immediately, the book was decried as anti-semetic. Moreover, publishing houses in New York would not translate the novel into English.  In short, Solzhenitsyn went from a literary darling to a persona non grata overnight.

So I decided to read the book in question. I’d like to be my own judge on the matter (thank you very much). And after completing the book, I’ve reached a conclusion:

200 Years Together is, arguably, the most accurate description of the Russian-Jewish relationship ever written. Solzhenitsyn’s research is comprehensive. The book is filled with footnotes, specific examples, and a plethora of sources from opposing sides. By doing this, he establishes a convincing case for a controversial claim:

Jewish people were, in part, responsible for mass genocide in the Ukraine during the 1930s; moreover, this atrocity has been downplayed – and often ignored – by the international community.

Here are some of the major points, which lead up to the Ukranian genocide (called the Holodomor).

1.) The Soviet Union Was the Home of the Jewish People for 200 Years

Many people think of Israel when they think of the Jews. Or, they might also think of the United States. However, they overlook the fact that prior to the birth of Israel, the Soviet Union was the home of the Jewish people.

Judging by its stable manner of life, it was in neighboring Poland that the biggest Jewish community emerged, expanded and became strong from the 13th to the 18th century. It formed the basis of the future Russian jewry, which became the most important part of World jewry until the 20th century (p. 9)

This historical background is important. The old saying is true…you can’t know the present unless you know the past. Jewish people have strong historical ties to Russia, and it was their homeland long before Israel became a nation.

Solzhenitsyn continues:

A contemporary Jewish progressive wrote, that ‘Jews, as a nation, do not exist’, that they ‘consider themselves Russians of the Mosaic faith…’‘Jews recognize that their salvation lies in the merging with the Russian people’.” (p. 59)

jews in russia
For 200 years, more Jews lived in Russia than any other country.

Moreover, many Jews considered themselves to be Russian. Many American Jews are unaware of this fact: i.e. the importance of Russia in Jewish history. These histories are glossed over in Hebrew schools, as well as secular American institutions. A Jew might learn about scripture or a variety of stories: i.e. from the Torah, Talmud, etc. Or, he might learn about Israeli history, like as the 7-Day War. But as for Russian history, it’s largely ignored.

2.) Eventually, Jews Became Influential Members of the Communist Party

Solzhenitsyn points out that after the revolution of 1917, the Jews gained more power in Russia.

“Soon after the March Revolution of 1917, everywhere in Petrograd you could see groups of Jews, standing on benches, soap boxes and such, making speeches…. There had been restrictions on the rights of Jews to live in Petrograd, but after the Revolution they came in droves, and the majority of agitators were Jews … they were apostate Jews” (p. 105)

Solzhenitsyn continues:

“Myself, having worked for many years on the “February” press and memoirs…could not fail to notice…in those materials, from the most varied witnesses and participants of those events, there are so many Jewish names, and the Jewish theme is very loud and persistent” (p. 105)

In short, the Russian revolution was, at first, a peasant uprising. However, later the movement was co-opted by Jews. Note that most of these Jews were apostate, meaning they gave up the traditional elements of their culture: i.e. the wearing of the kippah, etc.

marx
Karl Marx was, arguably, the most famous communist Jew that was an apostate. Many more were to follow…

The most famous apostate Jew in Russia was Karl Marx. He did not wear the traditional garb or follow the Hasidic traditions. Yet he was Jewish in this cultural sense: i.e. he was reared in the traditions of that faith.

3.) Jewish Members of the Communist Party Were Guilty of Mass Murder

Nearly 10 million people died in the Holodomor. This was an act of systematic starvation, where the Ukranian farmers were arrested and deported by Joseph Stalin. Soon after, millions of Ukranian peasants would die of starvation. Yet Stalin himself did not organize these actions; instead, he relied on “henchmen”: individuals that he knew would carry out the murders.

LK
Lazar Kaganivich, Stalin’s Jewish brother-in-law, organized the greatest mass murder of the 20th century: the Holodomor.

The most notorious of these mass murderers was Stalin’s brother-in-law, a Jewish man by the name of Lazar Kaganovich. Solzhenitsyn has no kind words for Kaganovich; he indicts him as the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. Moreover, and he lambastes the Western media for refusing to publicize the genocide.

Editorial note: If we continually hear about the Holocaust, then why don’t we hear about the Holodomor?

holodomor
The photos of the Holodomor resemble those of the Holocaust.

Another Jewish mass murderer was Isai Berg, As it turns out, Berg invented the mobile gas chamber, which he used to murder opponents of the Holodomor.

And from the astonishing disclosure in 1990 we learned that the famous mobile gas chambers were invented, as it turns out, not by Hitler during the World War II, but in the Soviet NKVD in 1937 by Isai Davidovich Berg, the head of the administrative and maintenance section of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast (sure, he was not alone in that enterprise, but he organized the whole business)…the victims were stripped naked, tied, mouths plugged, and thrown into a closed truck, outwardly disguised as a bread truck. On the road the exhaust fumes were redirected into the prisoner-carrying compartment, and by the time the van arrived to the burial ditch, the prisoners were “ready.

gas van
The Jewish man, Isai Berg, invented the first mobile gas chamber. It was used to silence opponents of the Holodomor (Ukrainian genocide).

And there were more culprits:

Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250)

The death total in the Holodomor is estimated to be 7-10 million. However, these numbers are widely disputed, and it’s believed to be closer to 20 million. In short, genocides are not carried out by one individual. It takes many people, working together, to organize the murders. In the case of the Ukranian Holodomor, many of the culprits were Jewish.

4.) Counterargument: Jews Should Be Forgiven for Any Atrocities Since They Were Persecuted in Russia

I’ve brought this topic up with Jews in the past: i.e. that Jewish individuals were responsible for genocide in the Ukraine. The retort is usually the same:

  • “Yes, that might be true…but Jews were heavily persecuted in the Soviet Union.”

Yes, that’s true to a certain extent. There were pogroms, as well as a variety of discriminatory actions perpetuated against Jews: i.e. the quotas regarding Jewish membership in various arenas, such as colleges or the government. And Russian Jews had every right to feel slighted in this regard.

However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Note that most wars are reprisals of some sort. Hiroshima was a response to Pearl Harbor; the bombing of Dresden, a response to the invasion of Poland, etc. Nearly all murders are retaliatory in nature. Somewhere…somehow…war must end. Somebody must learn to forgive.

But there is a more important point, which almost everyone can agree on – there is no justification for genocide. Even Hitler had legitimate grievances: i.e. the unfair treaties that were signed after World War 1. However, that doesn’t make Auschwitz a good thing.

Conclusion

200 Years Together is a must read. We learn important lessons, many of which are not being taught in Western schools.

  • The Soviet Union Was the Home of the Jewish People for 200 Years
  • Jews Became Influential Members of the Communist Party
  • Jewish Members of the Communist Party Were Guilty of Mass Murder

Why has the Holodomor ignored in history books? And why does Hollywood not  dramatize the event? So much death…so many families destroyed. There are many answers, but I think Solzhenitsyn says it best:

They [the Jews]have forgotten it. They have sincerely and completely forgotten it. Indeed, it is so difficult to remember bad things about yourself. (379)

See Related Article: Article Review: Richard Wagner’s “On Judaism in Music”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judging by its stable manner of life, it was in neighboring Poland that the biggest Jewish community emerged, expanded and became strong from the 13th to the 18th century. It formed the basis of the future Russian jewry, which became the most important part of World jewry until the 20th century (p. 9)

Ivan IV: “We absolutely do not permit the entry of the Jew into my lands, because we do not wish to see evil in our lands, but rather may God grant that the people in my land may have rest from that irritation. And you, our brother, should not write us on account of the jews again,” for they had “alienated the Russians from [G24] Christianity, brought poisonous plants into our lands and done much evil to our lands.”

“When Jews manage to find out about the impending Imperial Manifest about recruit enrollment before it is officially published … all members of Jewish families fit for military service flee from their homes in all directions….” (p. 44)

A contemporary Jewish progressive wrote, that ‘Jews, as a nation, do not exist’, that they ‘consider themselves Russians of the Mosaic faith…’‘Jews recognize that their salvation lies in the merging with the Russian people’.” (p. 59)

We just read in the old Jewish Encyclopedia: in Balta one Jew was killed, and wounded – several. But in the new Jewish Encyclopedia, after a century from the events, we read: in Balta “soldiers joined the pogromists…Several Jews were killed, hundreds wounded, many women were raped.” (p. 79)

“…the Jews did not forgive the Russian Government for these pogroms – and never have since. And although the pogroms originated mainly with the Ukrainian population, the Russians have not been forgiven and the pogroms have always been tied with the name of Russia (p. 89)

“…there arose the alarming connection that together with the increase of Jews among the students, the participation of students in the revolutionary movement noticeably increased” (p. 92)

“Myself, having worked for many years on the “February” press and memoirs…could not fail to notice…in those materials, from the most varied witnesses and participants of those events, there are so many Jewish names, and the Jewish theme is very loud and persistent” (p. 105)

“Soon after the March Revolution of 1917, everywhere in Petrograd you could see groups of Jews, standing on benches, soap boxes and such, making speeches…. There had been restrictions on the rights of Jews to live in Petrograd, but after the Revolution they came in droves, and the majority of agitators were Jews … they were apostate Jews” (p. 105)

 

The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews — had.(p. 107)

This mass departure of Jews from agriculture in the 1920’s and 30’s resembles similar Jewish withdrawal from agricultural colonies in the 19th century, albeit now there were many new occupations available in industry (and in administration, a prohibited field for Jews in Tsarist Russia) (222)

 

By far, the largest figure of Soviet cinematography was Sergei Eisenstein….The worldwide fame of Battleship Potemkin was a battering ram for the purposes of the Soviets and in its irresponsibly falsified history encouraged the Soviet public to further curse Tsarist Russia. Made-up events, such as the “massacre on Odessa Steps” scene and the scene where a crowd of rebellious seamen is covered with tarpaulin for execution, entered the world’s consciousness as if they were facts. First it was necessary to serve Stalin’s totalitarian plans and then his nationalistic idea. Eisenstein was there to help (233)

 

Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250)

The spirit of the decree was itself an example of nationalist hatred: It was the history and language of the Great Russians that was no longer needed. During the 20’s the very understanding of Russian history was changed — there was none! And the understanding of what a Great Russian is changed — there was no such thing. (238).

  1. Bloom in Moscow Evening could brazenly demand the removal of “history’s garbage from *city+ squares”: to remove Minin-Pozharsky monument from the Red Square, to remove the monument to Russia’s thousand-year anniversary in Novgorod and a statue of St. Vladimir on the hill in Kiev. “Those tons of metal are needed for raw material.”(238)

 

And from the astonishing disclosure in 1990 we learned that the famous mobile gas chambers were invented, as it turns out, not by Hitler during the World War II, but in the Soviet NKVD in 1937 by Isai Davidovich Berg, the head of the administrative and maintenance section of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast (sure, he was not alone in that enterprise, but he organized the whole business). This is why it is also important to know who occupied middle-level posts. It turns out, that I.D. Berg was entrusted with carrying out the sentences of the “troika” of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast; he dutifully performed his mission, which involved shuttling prisoners to the execution place. But when three “troikas” began to work simultaneously in the Moscow Oblast, the executioners became unable to cope with the sheer number of executions. Then they invented a time-saving method: the victims were stripped naked, tied, mouths plugged, and thrown into a closed truck, outwardly disguised as a bread truck. On the road the exhaust fumes were redirected into the prisoner-carrying compartment, and by the time the van arrived to the burial ditch, the prisoners were “ready.” (Well, Berg himself was shot in 1939, not for those evil deeds, of course, but for “the anti-Soviet conspiracy”. In 1956 he was rehabilitated without any problem, though the story of his murderous invention was kept preserved and protected in the records of his case and only recently discovered by journalists) (264)

So, even the purest and most immaculate Russian patriotism has no right to exist – not now, not ever?

Why is it so? And why it is that Russian patriotism is thus singled out?  (274)

Jews were unjustly accused of evasion of military service and in particular, of evasion of front line service.”65 “It was often said about Jews that instead of fighting, they stormed the cities of Alma-Ata and Tashkent.”66 Here is a testimony of a Polish Jew who fought in the Red Army: “In the army, young and old had been trying to convince me that … there was not a single Jew on the front . `We’ve got to fight for them.´ I was told in a `friendly´ manner: `You’re crazy. All your people are safely sitting at home. How come you are here on the front?´”67 I. Arad writes: “Expressions such as `we are at the front, and the Jews are in Tashkent´, `one never sees a Jew at the front line´could be heard among soldiers and civilians alike. (311)

 

Jewish family camps originated among the Jewish masses fleeing into the woods and there “were many thousands of such fugitives.” Purely Jewish armed squads were formed specifically for the protection of these camps. (Weapons were purchased through third parties from German soldiers or policemen.) Yet how to feed them all? The only way was to take food as well as shoes and clothing, both male and female, by force from the peasants of surrounding villages. “The peasant was placed between the hammer and the anvil. If he did not carry out his assigned production minimum, the Germans burned his household and killed him as a `partisan´. On the other hand, guerrillas took from him by force all they needed”159 – and this naturally caused spite among the peasants: they are robbed by Germans and robbed by guerrillas – and now in addition even the Jews rob them? And the Jews even take away clothes from their women? (p. 324)

 

“Zionism is the instrument of the American imperialism.” So the “Jews had to prove their loyalty in one way or other, to somehow convince the people around them that they had no connection to their own Jewishness, especially to Zionism.” (360)

 

Yet why should not the Jewish question exist — the question of the unprecedented threethousand-year-old existence of the nation, scattered all over the Earth, yet spiritulally soldered together despite all notions of the state and territoriality, and at the same time influencing the entire world history in the most lively and powerful way? Why should there not be a “Jewish question” given that all national questions come up at one time or other, even the “Gagauz question” *a small Christian Turkic people, who live in the Balkans and Eastern Europe]? (369)

 

The same was true for Russia too. In pre-revolutionary Russian society, as we saw, it was the omission of the Jewish question that was considered “anti-Semitic.” In fact, in the mind of the Russian public the Jewish question — understood as the question of civil rights or civil equality — developed into perhaps the central question of the whole Russian public life of that period, and certainly into the central node of the conscience of every individual, its acid test.” (369)

 

So when exactly did it happen that the Jews, once such a reliable backbone of the regime, turned into almost its greatest adversary? (371)

 

Here’s Dan Levin, an American intellectual who immigrated to Israel: “It is no accident, that none of the American writers who attempted to describe and explain what happened to Soviet Jewry, has touched this important issue — the [Jewish] responsibility for the communism…. In Russia, the people’s anti-Semitism is largely due to the fact that the Russians perceive the Jews as the cause of all the evil of the revolution. Yet American writers — Jews and ex-Communists … do not want to resurrect the ghosts of the past. However, oblivion is a terrible thing. (374)

 

But today, when it is clear how many Jews were in the iron Bolshevik leadership, and how many more took part in the ideological guidance of a great country to the wrong track — should the question not arise [among modern Jews] as to some sense of responsibility for the actions of those *Jews+? It should be asked in general: shouldn’t there be a kind of moral responsibility — not a joint liability, yet the responsibility to remember and to acknowledge? For example, modern Germans accept liability to Jews directly, both morally and materially, as perpetrators are liable to the victims: for many years they have paid compensation to Israel and personal compensation to surviving victims. (375)

 

They have forgotten it. They have sincerely and completely forgotten it. Indeed, it is so difficult to remember bad things about yourself. (379)

Of course, as is always true for both individuals and nations, it is unreasonable to expect words of remorse from Jews regarding their past involvement. But I absolutely could not expect that the Jews, while deserting Bolshevism, rather than expressing even a sign of repentance or at least some embarrassment, instead angrily turned on the Russian people: it is the Russians who had ruined democracy in Russia (i.e., in February 1917), it is the Russians who are guilty of support of this regime from 1918 on. (382)

 

Let us note that any insulting judgment about the “Russian soul” in general or about the “Russian character” generally does not give rise to the slightest protest or doubt among civilized people. The question “of daring to judge nations as one uniform and faceless whole” does not arise. If someone does not like all things Russian or feels contempt for them, or even expresses in progressive circles the belief that “Russia is a cesspool,” this is no sin in Russia and it does not appear reactionary or backward. And no one immediately appeals to presidents, prime ministers, senators, or members of Congress with a reverent cry, “What do you think of such incitement of ethnic hatred?” We’ve said worse of ourselves since the 19th century and right up to the revolution. We have a rich tradition of this.) (385)

How Rhyme Scheme and Pronouns Are Used to Create a Hit Song

How Rhyme Scheme and Pronouns Are Used to Create a Hit Song

“Troubadour” by George Strait is a hit song: and 34 million views on YouTube will attest to my claim.

When we analyze the lyrics, we see the art of songwriting at work; in particular, the use of effective rhyme scheme and pronoun.

I still feel 25 most of the time.
I still raise a little cain with the boys.
Honky Tonks and pretty women,
But Lord I’m still right there with ’em
Singing above the crowd and the noise…

The rhyme scheme here is AB/AAB. This sets the table for the rest of the song, and he’ll contrast it later against the chorus.  The structure matters. Professional songwriters will never repeat a rhyme scheme in both the verse and chorus.

Secondly, he’s writing in the first person (I/Me/My). Again, we see an important element of songwriting. A hit song is always in the first and second person: it’s me/you and never he/she. Some examples?

  • “Lady…for so many years I thought I’d never find you.”
  • I’ve got you…under my skin”
  • I left my heart in San Francisco.”
  • You are my sunshine, my only sunshine…”

You get the picture. The pronoun is critical to a hit song…a point that was made by Ralph Murphy, the vice-president of ASCAP. The next time that you hear a hit song, take note of the pronoun.

And now on to the chorus…

Sometimes I feel like Jesse James
Still tryin’ to make a name.
Knowing nothing’s gonna change what I am.
I was a young troubador
When I wrote in on a song.
And I’ll be an old troubador when I’m gone…

Notice that the rhyme scheme has changed: we’re on to AAB/ABB. It’s a subtle change, yet a profound one. The listener can notice a difference (if only on a subconscious level). Also, we’re still in the first person. Introducing a different pronoun would confuse the listener.

Now, we’re on to the second verse…

Well the truth about a mirror…
Is that a damn old mirror…
Don’t really tell the whole truth.
It don’t show what’s deep inside.
Or read between the lines.
And it’s really no reflextion of my youth…

The rhyme scheme here is different than the opening verse. The reason? Very simple…the listener gets bored easily. So the songwriter has to alter the pattern to pique the interest. Logic would dictate that we repeat the rhyme scheme from the first verse. But a talented songwriter knows better. You have to do something different if you don’t have a bridge (which the song doesn’t).

Needless to say, George Strait did not write this song; he knows better. Instead, he hired a pro to do the work for him. And Strait focused on what he does best – singing. Every man is born with a talent. And sometimes the talent involves knowing what you CANNOT do, as opposed to what he can do.

Enjoy the song…and notice how the fundamentals of songwriting come together.

See Related Article: Why the Music Videos of Kenny Chesney Are Feminist Tripe