Ginsberg Offers Rare Peek With Beatnik Family Album

>> hell I don’t even know what omnisexual is.

The guy describes blades of grass sensually.

>>He knew enough to know what Moloch was, Moloch’s relation to the Jews, and Moloch’s meaning as a worshiped idol. It wasn’t like he stumbled upon it.

Well the vast majority of lit. crit. says that Moloch is a symbol for the anti-otherness in 50’s American society. I wrote that Moloch was more like the refining fire seen in Yeats’ “Sailing to Byzantium” and present in many other poems by minority poets, etc. It’s almost a Jungian symbol for poets.

>> hell I don’t even know what omnisexual is.

The guy describes blades of grass sensually.
/////////////
doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with DH Lawrence’s analysis.

lit. crit. says that Moloch is a symbol for the anti-otherness in 50’s American society. I wrote that Moloch was more like the refining fire seen in Yeats’ “Sailing to Byzantium” and present in many other poems by minority poets, etc. It’s almost a Jungian symbol for poets.

............

From Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

Moloch (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") – also rendered as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom or Molcom – is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.[1] Moloch worship was practiced by the Canaanites, Phoenician and related cultures in North Africa and the Levant.

As a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites, Moloch had associations with a particular kind of propitiatory child sacrifice by parents. Moloch figures in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Book of Leviticus as a form of idolatry (Leviticus 18:21: "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch"). In the Old Testament, Gehenna was a valley by Jerusalem, where apostate Israelites and followers of various Baalim and Caananite gods, including Moloch, sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6).

Moloch has been used figuratively in English literature from John Milton's Paradise Lost (1667) to Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" (1955), to refer to a person or thing demanding or requiring a very costly sacrifice.

Biblical texts

The word here translated literally as 'seed' very often means offspring. The forms containing mlk have been left untranslated. The reader may substitute either "to Moloch" or "as a molk".

According to Biblical texts, the laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Israelites to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan.

Leviticus 18:21:

‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

Leviticus 20:2–5:

Again, you shall say to the Sons of Israel: Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed l'Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed l'Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed l'Molech, and do not kill him, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, whoring l'Molech from among the people.

Jeremiah 32:35:

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire l'Molech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

I meant the Moloch in “Howl”.

lit. crit. says that Moloch is a symbol for the anti-otherness in 50’s American society.
..........
Presumably today our rulers are anti-otherness people.

Certainly I’ve seen the culture of the Columbia and the upper west side of Manhattan and the village—of the 70’s and 80’s become mainstream in the USA in the 2010’s

When I was in my last year in Manhattan back in 1990, I read a book —just translated from the original spanish. The book was written by Hernando Cortez’s lieutenant. a guy by the name of Bernal Diaz. He was known as Cortez’s oldest lieutenant. His book was “The Conquest of New Spain”. He recounted the stories of Cortez’s conquest. They were fairly familiar stories. But there was one twist. Something you don’t read about at all anywhere else but with Diaz. He relates that the Aztec priests were homosexuals. That they would “act up” right in front of Cortez. This would offend Cortez greatly. (If you want to read the book, there is a free copy here. http://ebookbrowse.com/bernal-diaz-the-conquest-of-new-spain-pdf-d293703560

I suddenly realized that Cortez’s reaction and that of his men was much the same as that of Moses and Joshua when confronted with similar behavior by the Canaanites.

Further that the culture that supports homosexuality also supports abortion. The two are morally related in that they are both immense vanities. Further that since these two peoples the Aztecs and the Caanites had no knowledge of each other—that people left to their own devices—are naturally bad to bone. Or as Romans 3:23 puts it “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

Regrettable personal life choices

A man who's career partly consisted of promoting and legalizing and encouraging homosexual seduction and rape of little boys and to promote NAMBLA?

Some career there chief, a "regrettable personal life choice" so to speak about your beloved artist.

In this case, this isn't some horrible deeply buried secret discovered after his death, this was a large part of his life's work, his career, his art, as his customers and fans empowered him, he used that wealth and power and his place in the public eye to promote crimes against boys and humanity.

Right,
So now you feel the need to attack me personally.
I do hope that makes you feel better.

"As a person, who is both a lover of poetry and a published poet myself, I consider Ginsberg to be one of the truly great poets that America has produced, and I am absolutely not ashamed to admit it.

How is calling him your "beloved artist", a personal attack?

I thought your whole point is that he was your beloved artist, and that his political and social activism and writing and speaking for and promoting of the little boy rape thing shouldn't influence our appreciation of his great art?