Yesterday, I posted a long essay written by someone else, comic book writer and artist Dave Sim’s 2001 anti-feminist manifesto “Tangent,” that I would like to comment on presently. You can read the essay before reading these comments, but it surely is not required. It might also be better to read it after reading this, frankly, as having some framing might help you to understand why I view it as an important artifact of anti-feminist history.

It’s worthy of note that reading the essay now, I could not say any of it is better or more relevant than the material I have personally produced about women. However, at this point, listening to popular figures talk about not only women but all of the top issues, I get the impression I am listening to my own talking points read back to me. It’s not bragging to state that I changed the entire narrative on the internet right about a lot of different issues. (I legitimately am not boastful about this, it is simply that it must be said in order to understand how these ideas have developed. Aside from “4chan, collectively,” I am the person who is most responsible for developing and popularizing these ideas and there is no one who is anywhere near a close second. I only feel thankful God blessed me with such an important role, and pray that I can do more in my remaining time here.) However, aside from people influenced by me, it is difficult to find much modern material, written after the feminist revolution of the 1960s and 70s, which addresses these issues at all, so the Sim essay is very intriguing, even if reading it in the current year you think “this is all stuff Anglin said a decade ago.” I also think there are some things he points out which I have not said specifically which make it worthwhile to comment on, and it gives me a platform to elaborate on these issues myself in ways I might not have thought of doing before.

I shall start with some criticisms. Just to get them out of the way. All of these criticisms should be considered in the light of the fact that 2001 is now a very long time ago and before the modern internet transformed the way people think.

Firstly, it will be obvious that I do not agree with his perceptions of Martin Luther King, as outlined in the final section of the essay, and I do believe the piece would be much better if that section had been left out completely. I find it confusing and convoluted. The summary, insofar as I can tell, is that King was destroyed and turned into a communist by women. That claim may or may not have some validity. I tend to think it doesn’t have any validity, because without even going into the details of King’s political agenda, the fact that King was a serial adulterer means that he was not a particularly moral man and really had no right to call himself a man of God (Sim readily admits as much). While it’s possible for any man to lose control on a single night, anyone who is involved in rampant adultery for years on end is going to be the sort of man who is totally beholden to the whims of women (in my experience, this describes virtually all American negroes). While I’m sure Daily Stormer readers will bristle at what appears to be a partial apologetic for the “civil rights” movement, the entire essay shouldn’t be cast aside because of this confused last section. Further, what you can see in looking at the structure of the essay is that Sim choked because he didn’t want to be accused of “racism” in his sexist manifesto (I will touch on this later).

Aside from the muddled final section, the primary issues that I would take with Sim are all based on the fact that I accept the traditional dogma of the church. Therefore, I am not iffy on the topic of the morality of homosexuality. I do not feel a need to analyze Bible verses word for word, and don’t see how, if you believe in a religion, you can do this kind of reading of the sacred text. If you read the Bible closely, you can find all sorts of contradictions and various other problems. But Jesus did not come to write a book, He came to build a church. No one ever thought that the gospels were directly written by God, as they clearly contradict one another, offering differing accounts of events. If you take them to be the written accounts of men recalling the events years or decades after they happened, it actually goes a long way toward proving their authenticity to find out they remembered some details differently while remembering the key events the same. (If they had been falsified centuries afterward, as atheists have claimed without evidence, then the accounts would presumably all be the same. Unless the conspirators falsifying the documents for whatever reason it is claimed that they did that would have thought “we’d better make some small changes between the varying accounts to give them a more authentic feel,” which doesn’t really seem very likely.) At the same time, this means that a line-by-line reading of the gospels in an attempt to find some insight that has yet to be identified by the magisterium is not going to be very meaningful. Sim claims that the only reason that the Bible would refer to two men being in bed together, and one going to Heaven and the other Hell, is that not all homosexuals go to Hell. I have no idea if all homosexuals go to Hell, just as I have no idea if all murderers go to Hell. But it is embarrassing to read “two men in bed” and assume that Luke is talking about homosexuals. Up through the 19th century, men sleeping in bed together did not imply homosexuality, but simply frugality and a need to conserve warmth. It’s embarrassing because you find so many examples in reading of this happening. Just as a random example I can think of off the top of my head, Ben Franklin and John Adams famously shared a bed in an inn while traveling to New York to negotiate an end to the Revolutionary War. Because homosexuality was not something that people thought much about before perhaps the 1950s, no one blinked at two men sharing a bed, and it is obvious that no such thing is implied by that verse in Luke.

I don’t mean to digress. I wanted to go into the weirdness of micro-readings of the gospels, searching for clues, because it speaks to a larger point I am going to try to make here about people who say socially uncomfortable truths before they are popular. (This is a topic I’m somewhat familiar with and one which is important to me, so I’m going to weave it into what is on its face supposed to be more anti-woman material.)

Dave Sim is a weird person, which is why I think his perspective is important. There are few people who I agree with completely. Even the people who were most influential on me were people who I could read specific quotes from and think “wow, that’s retarded, why would he say that?” There should not be a kind of “mold” that everyone is forced to conform to in order to be considered a valuable contributor to the public conversation. Reading the Sim essay, and recognizing how ahead of its time it was, I thought to myself: we need more people like Dave Sim. The people who are actually ahead of their time are always weird in some way or various ways. I get frustrated about Tucker Carlson promoting aliens or Candace Owens promoting the Macron tranny wife theory, but the reason I get frustrated is that I’m not allowed into the conversation because of the overwhelming censorship. I do think these beliefs of Tucker and Candace are the result of a psyop, whereas Sim’s strange beliefs are more a result of unique personality quirks and perhaps too much LSD, but it is my very strong belief that anything anyone says should just be taken at face value and discussed without emotion.

The problem has only ever been censorship. Whether it be the kind of social censorship that Sim was facing back in 2001, or the brutal totalitarian mega-ultra-doom censorship I faced in 2017, anything that reduces anyone’s ability to say anything they think and believe inhibits truth. No one who cares about the truth should ever be afraid of other people’s ideas or having their own ideas be challenged.

Possibly the biggest takeaway from the ridiculous Dave Smith vs. Douglas Murray debate (because insofar as there was any beef it was thin and dry) was that it is not adult behavior to demand, in the discussion of ideas, that a person explain why they have a right to have ideas. Certainly, if a person is completely irrelevant, you have no obligation to discuss ideas with them or talk to them at all, but if I was invited on the Joe Rogan show to debate a pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine schizophrenic homeless drug addict, I would do the debate, rather than demand it be explained to me why I should do the debate with someone of such low social status. If he’s on the Joe Rogan show, then clearly, it is a part of the public conversation and therefore important enough to take straightforwardly. If a person is totally ridiculous and everything they think is ridiculous, you should take the easy win of publicly defeating them in the game of wits. Just discuss the ideas, Douglas, you sickening shabbos pederast.

If more public personalities were like Sim, willing to simply give their frank opinions, unconcerned about conforming to any kind of identifiable ideology or political grouping, we would have a lot more interesting conversations. What you find is that with most of these people, they claim to be independent thinkers, but in actuality they are conforming to established norms. Although I am of course very excited that discussion of Jews and Israel is now on the menu, it must be admitted that the Jews handed this over to the commentariat on a silver platter through their genocide in Gaza and their open and public dictation to the US government as to how the US government will behave in the Middle East. It was so utterly ridiculous to have Bibi Netanyahu ordering Biden what to do in public, and then Donald Trump coming in and saying “Biden isn’t doing enough for Israel, he’s with the Palestinians and I think he is a Palestinian,” that it could not result in anything other than the issue becoming available for discussion and debate.

You can go look at what the situation in the “alternative media” was like before the Gaza genocide, and you’re not going to find very much discussion of Israel or the Jews. That is of course based on the 2017 censorship program, of which this writer was the most important and biggest casualty, but a censorship program is based on what the public will tolerate. The Jews who run the media tried to apply the same censorship they applied to me to people complaining about black crime and child trannies, and it did not work. These Jews will censor whatever they can get away with censoring, and if there would have been a strong public reaction to the 2017 censorship, none of the other censorship would have happened. They cannot simply silence 50% or even 20% of the population. Using the standard methods of internet censorship, debanking, personal harassment, and various threats, they can maybe silence 10%. If 25% or more of the public either agrees with you or believes you should have a right to say the thing you want to say, you can say it. This was true even in the Soviet Union. It is presumably true now in North Korea. You can insert whatever other sort of totalitarian system you imagine. There is only so much power that the government and private interests can wield over the masses of people, and deciding that certain ideas are not allowed is very extreme and it requires overwhelming popular support to enact these kinds of measures. (Note: the popular response, whenever you say something like “in communist countries, 97% of the people support the government,” is always to say “but they’re brainwashed.” But that is always going to be true to whatever extent. It doesn’t matter if people are brainwashed to believe something, they still believe it. It is also ridiculous for anyone living in a Western country to accuse anyone else of being brainwashed. The United States and its greater empire is visibly, openly controlled by Jews, and you’re not allowed to say that. Remember the old ADL thing: “Hollywood is run by individuals who happen to be Jewish.” No one in North Korea is banned from saying Kim Jong-Un is the leader of the country.)

This is to say, it is very clear that the current discussion of America’s relationship to Israel and the Israeli control of our government’s policy, and to a somewhat lesser extent a discussion of the Jews and their role in our society, is possible because a majority of people think it should be possible, and therefore no one discussing these things who was not discussing them before this (that would include all of the major figures in right-leaning internet media) is not discussing it because they are a “free thinker” who “makes up their own mind,” but rather that they are jumping on a bandwagon of what are popular and allowed realms of thinking. Again (and I will say again), I like it that this is being discussed. But it’s not brave. It was brave when I did it, frankly. Right now, you would actually have to be brave to side with Ben Shapiro and sickening Dave Portnoy. Siding with them wouldn’t be brave in the same way it was brave (or just retarded, frankly, I’m using “brave” in the sense of a disregard for self-interest) for me to talk about Jews ten years ago, because my life was totally ruined and siding with Shapiro now would not do the same damage, but it would destroy the career of someone like Joe Rogan to go out there and claim that “Israel is defending itself.”

Reading Sim first declare that the Bible is questionable and he thinks the Koran is better and then go pick apart some Bible verse and say “maybe this means homosexuality is not really that bad of a sin?” doesn’t frustrate or anger me, but rather makes me laugh and on another level, confirms that he does not care what anyone thinks about what he is saying, he is simply saying what he believes. All of this is to say: honesty and genuineness are a lot more valuable than trying to be right all the time. If you are honest and genuine, then you are open to criticism, so you don’t have to act like you’re right all the time. Having an open mind is going to lead to the truth, but it might lead you down some weird avenues on the way. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as the discussion remains open. I will note that when I first heard Tucker Carlson say he was attacked by a demon in his sleep and it scraped him, I laughed and then kept replaying the clip to try to read his facial movements. While I do think this claim is stupid, as I do not believe that demons are scraping people in their sleep, the fact that he went out and said it and by all analysis believes it makes me think he could become a more interesting person in the years to come.

(I must note that saying contrary things simply to appear interesting is actually worse than just going with the flow and agreeing with some existing consensus, but that is a separate topic of discussion which I do not wish to discuss in much detail here. I will say that I think it is more or less obvious when someone is saying something contrarian to seem interesting and when they are saying what they believe in a frank manner even when it doesn’t conform to the norms of belief of any existing faction. Apparently, stupid people do not find it obvious, which is why mediocre right-winger internet commentators who are burning out can gain some attention on a fading star by going out and saying “actually, I support Democrats now.” But I refuse to believe anyone who isn’t stupid falls for that, and we cannot consider stupid people’s opinions as important, because they might believe anything at any moment. We live in a world where the headline “Extremist pro-homelessness advocate Gavin Newsom declares total war on homeless people” is considered good for Gavin Newsom’s career, and likely is very good for his career, so we cannot consider the opinions of stupid people other than to consider the effect that stupid people collectively have on the public discourse not through their opinions but through their seemingly supernatural ability to believe anything.)

Regardless of my particular disagreements about Sim’s comments on homosexuality, I do agree with his conclusions that homosexuality should be suppressed while homosexuals, if they keep their actions secretive, should not be molested. There is no explanation of how homosexuals could be hunted without creating a totalitarian state, so by default, they must be allowed to practice their private acts privately. It is not a good society where the government launches an investigation into two unmarried men living together. It’s also not nice to imagine women calling the cops to report a man who appears to be very unmarried and maybe a bit fruity. Everything about actually prosecuting homosexuals, if they do keep it private, leads to problems bigger than homosexuality, namely, state/police excesses and witch-hunting. This was never really a problem at any point in history. Although the modern “homosexual identity” is somewhat new, there have always been people who engaged in homosexual activities, and there was never a need to do a witch-hunt investigating the bedrooms of unmarried men in order to prevent them from parading through the streets sucking each other off in front of children. Personally, I think buggery should be nominally illegal, in order to prevent it from seeping out into the public realm, but I don’t think laws against it are enforceable unless it is brought into the public realm. If gay clubs were secret, I would not support organizing special “Fag Patrol” police to infiltrate them.

Most of my other critiques would follow from the original thing. For example, Sim does another thing finding a Bible verse to claim marriage isn’t really necessary in the Bible. I obviously think Christianity is pro-marriage, but that modern Western “marriage” is not actually marriage in the Christian sense, but rather a bastardized secular version designed to exclusively benefit women. Further, I do not believe that the people of the Old Testament or the followers of Christ were “Jews” in the modern sense, as Judaism did not exist at that time, but that is an entirely separate issue unrelated to the topic of the day. You can just fill in the blank as to where I would disagree with some of the other statements he makes and includes God. I just believe the Nicene Creed.

Finally, while it might be unfair to frame this as a criticism, in explaining how he’s given up on women completely, Sim says “if you learn to leave your penis alone, your penis will learn to leave you alone.” I’ve discovered this as well, but I discovered it after I was 35. Sim was writing in his forties. Many men come to the conclusion that abstaining from sex and masturbation results in a better life, but they always seem to discover it in middle age. I just want to say that while I agree with celibacy, and I endorse it as a lifestyle brand, I also understand that when I was in my teens and twenties, I was not practicing it, and I understand that it is a bit high and mighty to go around bragging about one’s ability to control his sexual impulses when he is middle-aged after having not had this ability in his youth. I don’t think Sim was doing that, but he also doesn’t directly acknowledge that age might have played a role in his penis deciding to leave him alone. That said, I do encourage young men to seek celibacy as I think it is good for them, as no good can come from engaging with women. But I’m not going to say “when I turned 37 I realized it was really easy to be celibate,” as that appears oblivious.

Now, let’s look at some of what I found enlightening or otherwise useful in the essay. First, in the early paragraphs, he says that one of the first things he learned in his research is that “women want to be raped by rich, muscular, handsome doctors.” It doesn’t seem groundbreaking to make such a statement now, because I’ve spent over a decade making this claim, which was apparently incendiary despite it being self-evidently true. But it was certainly not old hat in 2001. Even though this concept had been expressed by philosophers in the 19th century and before, they did not use such frank language, instead talking of how women wish to “surrender” to a powerful and high status man. But the actual physical form of that surrender being rape is not something many people said frankly until I started spamming it.

Another thing he says early on is that during his research, which he describes as a “series of informal interviews with mothers and daughters,” he concluded that all women are “feminists.” This is something I have said continually, that making a distinction between “women” and “feminists” will lead only to confusion. There is a movement on the internet of women claiming they are “traditional” (they still say “trad,” which seems to me to come across today as very dated slang), and yet they are clearly engaging in all of the behaviors that all women engage in, which is attention mongering, status mongering, resource mongering, and generalized, wide-spectrum whoring.

I think I have said it best when I have also added that just as there are no non-feminists in the West, there are no feminists in Afghanistan. “Feminism” as we currently define it is simply unrestricted female behavior. It is a social paradigm masquerading as an ideology. The Taliban restricts women’s behavior, making it a crime for them to express their natural tendency towards becoming completely out of control. In the West, in order for a woman to be “not a feminist,” she would have to be restricting herself, because any man who tried to restrict her would be killed or thrown in a cage by cops. Women are incapable of restricting themselves, therefore all women in a nation where it is illegal for men to restrict women are an embodiment of the worst forms of female decadence and depravity.

Certainly, some women in the West are worse than others, but the only reason for the differences that remain are the remnants of male restriction on female behavior that still exist in Western society. These are only social restrictions, most prominently the primal tendency of people to look down on women who are public whores. Women and their allies have attempted to organize systematic movements to destroy this lingering instinct to shame women through “slut marches” and various other anti-shaming programs, but some modicum of shame still exists among some women in the West, which, aside from basic personality differences (which are generally overstated as an influence on behavior, though not totally irrelevant, as an “outgoing” woman is likely to be a more aggressive slut than one with an introverted personality), is the sole reason for any distinction in the quality of women’s behavior in feminist countries.

One of the bright things that actually felt new in reading the Sim essay was that he described doing the interviews as the first time he had actually conversed with women he was not attempting to sleep with, and identified the fact that when you are engaging in the kind of conversation that leads to sex, you are taking a very different route than if you are attempting to understand women. This seems quite important: save for their mothers (who men universally view through a very specific and entirely warped lens), most men never engage in conversation with women in any kind of depth outside of attempting to have sex, and in such a conversation, you are in the realm of the woman, and she is completely in charge of the conversation. Certainly, every man understands that if you start talking about serious issues, as you would talk with a man, to a woman you are attempting to have sex with, she will totally shut down and shut you off. So, young men (and apparently also much older men) who are attempting to get laid go along with a woman’s desire to talk about frivolous things, primarily entertainment media, general gossip, and various personal anecdotes, as that is beneficial to their goals. However, if you actually start questioning a woman on her politics, her views on ethics, relationships, society at large, or really anything at all other than trivialities, you find that there is literally nothing there, that women do not process information or use reason in any way, and they view everything that exists purely in terms of how it makes them feel. It is a pure sort of solipsism that is in some ways awe-inspiring, this concept that a human can exist and actually believe they are the center of the universe. If a man could believe such a thing, he would be a serial killer, a terrorist, a communist, or all three, and likely extremely wealthy to boot.

Sim references a character in his comic saying that in order to keep a woman, you simply have to “be happy every minute of your life.” I understand what he is trying to say, given that a woman’s mood is totally resonant to a man’s mood (as Sim says, not at all ground-breakingly as this had been said a lot, the biology of men and women shows that a woman is a void to be filled by a man’s form), and therefore it can feel like you have to be happy all the time in order for the woman to be happy all the time. And maybe that would work in certain cases. But it’s actually much worse and more extreme than that: women feel alive going through emotional rollercoasters, and they enjoy all sorts of different moods that a man might have. While “girls just want to have fun” (with a “fun” man) is probably a safe baseline, women also enjoy being abused by an angry man, they enjoy coddling and comforting a depressive man, they enjoy attempting to stimulate a bored man, and much else. So really, much more than simply being happy all the time to ensure she is resonating with your mood, in order to maintain a long-term relationship in a feminist society you would have to be able to predict whatever mood would entertain her at the moment and shape yourself to that, shifting your mood as necessary to meet her every whimsical whim. When women describe their ideal man, after saying he must be seven feet tall and wealthy, they say he must be strong, but also not afraid to show emotion, and also able to make them laugh, etc. They appear to describe a gargantuan billionaire schizophrenic with a whole lot of free time. (Meanwhile, the man is saying “just please don’t be too fat.”)

While I think Sim is generally cynical enough, on the point of “just be happy all the time,” I had an “if only you knew how bad things really are” moment.

In my analysis, the botched final section of the essay, which described in some confusing detail how Martin Luther King succumbed to the whims of women, was not actually intended to “close with an example,” as it might first appear, but rather to elaborate on the structure of the essay that includes women attempting to equate themselves and their supposed struggles with various other types of living things in order to obfuscate their position in society. He says, rightly, that women are lesser than men, and therefore, women try to confuse the issue of their status below men by bringing in various other groups and saying everyone is equal. He starts with homosexuals, who women promote as being equal, then stretches it to women claiming children are just like adults and that actually, animals are humans. He wanted to say that “they also claim niggers are equal to whites,” but he didn’t want to sound “racist” and may not be a “racist.” Regardless of anyone’s racism, it is simply a fact that women were very supportive of the “civil rights” movement, and are the primary supporters of the idea that “black people are just the same as white people.”

The section on women viewing domestic animals as equals was interesting and not something I’d really thought of. He describes allowing pets into the house as a female agenda against fathers, and though I’d never thought of that before, it is obviously true. I don’t know if it is really a problem to have dogs indoors, and it kind of makes sense in an urban environment where there is not much room for them outdoors, but it does seem obvious after having read it that it would have been women who initially pushed for this status of animals as “members of the family.”

The framing of “feminism is communism” is fine, and the way women align with homosexuals, children, animals, and black people against their betters in a communist fashion is simply an obvious description of what goes on in Western societies. That said, I would say that framing women as unreasoning and then also framing them as consciously organizing in a communist manner is confusing. In my view, women promoting every group as being equal is done instinctively. There is another group of people who does this very same thing.

And this leads us to where Sim’s analysis is really lacking: it doesn’t address the Jewish issue, which is always the elephant in the room. No analysis is really going to be complete without considering the Jews, and in the case of coming at the issues of society from an anti-feminist perspective, it is so obvious to point to the Jews. It is a clear fact that every feminist ideology proponent was Jewish, but more than that, the analysis of Otto Weininger in his book “Sex and Character” is correct: Jews are fundamentally a feminine people, and embody the spirit of the feminine.

You can analyze and explain why it is nonsensical to view women as equal to men, but you cannot ever explain why this is happening in the first place without addressing the Jewish problem, as the Jews were the power that pushed this cancer into the society. It’s not different than analyzing black criminality and so-called “niggerfests.” You can keep saying “jeez, black people are ridiculous, wow, can you believe they act like this?”, but without looking at the Jews who enable and justify the behavior of blacks, you’re not ever going to reach any kind of understanding of why this is an issue now, after blacks lived almost entirely peacefully with whites for hundreds of years.

Without looking at the Jews, you have a lot of nonsensical things occurring, seemingly for no reason. As soon as you look at what Saint Paul said about the Jews, that they are, in a spiritual and even supernatural sense, “in opposition to all mankind” (1 Thessalonians 2:15), all of this clicks into place, and you understand that elevating the people who murdered Jesus Christ to the status of an alien ruling elite in Western societies is going to lead to a destruction of all of the norms of Christian society. It’s deeply sad and also hilarious that this is all there in the Christian Bible for anyone who wants to look at it and yet the masses of people are left in total confusion, looking around and asking “why are things like this?”

The answer is clearly spelled out in the book that was up until recent years in the nightstand of every hotel room in America.

That otherworldly and satanic evil described by Saint Paul, that spirit in opposition to Christ, is also written all over the hateful, rat-faces of Dave Portnoy and Ben Shapiro, and many are beginning to notice this. However, in my experience, a true understanding of the Jewish problem can only come through an understanding of Christ. If someone is looking at Portnoy or Shapiro and asking “why are these people like this?”, they are not going to find a satisfactory answer unless they open up the Bible and find that this is a people who built their identity on the literal murder of God, and this is why they embody the spirit of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and of his fag-hag girlfriend Eve, the first feminist and the first human to rebel against God and the order of nature.

Post-Script

It would be interesting to see Sim reflect on these issues a quarter century after publishing this essay that I’ve identified as an important historical artifact of anti-feminist thinking. To my knowledge, he’s never recanted anything he said, but hasn’t done any further formal statements like the “Tangent” essay.

Realistically, he doesn’t have any reason to say anything about anything, because the punishment for this sort of thinking is a lot stricter than it used to be. He already has some money, having done well with Cerebus (at least from what I’ve read), but during MeToo, Ethan Van Sciver quite shamefully canceled him over a story about him meeting a girl when she was 14 and then having sex with her when she was 21. There is a rule now that you can’t have met a woman you have sex with before she turned [AGE OF CONSENT]. Every woman who you ever meet who is not yet [AGE OF CONSENT] is permanently removed from your potential romantic partners list or else it’s “grooming” and Ethan Van Sciver will fire you to protect his very serious reputation in the biz. (To be clear, Van Sciver did try to defend him at first before firing him. But it was a complete bitch move. And I promise you, no writer who is even 1% as good as Sim will ever write CyberFrog.)

There is no reward in this world for telling unpopular truths. If you’re Tucker Carlson and you’re telling very popular truths, you can become obscenely wealthy. Tucker Carlson still won’t say the things that Dave Sim said in 2001.

Publishing this essay at a time when his income was in no small part dependent on showing up at comic book conventions where he would be lambasted or cold-shouldered by all of his peers other than Frank Miller was a brave act of conscience and a real standard of creative work worth aspiring to. Probably, “creative work” is an important term here, as I think it is creatives who are willing to take these risks, to make sacrifices for the truth, and too much of the internet right is influenced by journalists, who are human garbage and totally without spines. An Armenian taxi driver in Moscow is more honest than a journalist. It’s very obvious that the people pushing the narrative forward right now are primarily oriented as comedians rather than journalists. The journalistic impulse is to create reality while the artistic impulse is to reflect on and maybe to try to understand reality. Normal people do not tend to fall into either category, but normal people don’t strive to drive the public narrative. A world where the public narrative is driven by journalists rather than artists becomes like the Giver. (I understand that the reverse is also true, and it was art-minded people who drove the society to the left, but this becomes a “the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” type situation.)

I hope that the world has not totally run out of interesting people.

The invasion of blacks into formerly majority white entertainment media has been like a plague. In particular, it is black women. I don’t know why it’s women more than men, but it seems like no television program, video game, or comic book can be without a black woman as the female lead. You would think it was the law.

Desperados 3, developed by Mimimi Games, was one of my favorite video games of the last few years. This is an indie dev making pretty niche genre games. I would wager that not one single black woman played Desperados 3, and I would think the total number of both women and black men would be much less than 1% of the total player base. It would be an overwhelming majority white men, with the second largest group being Asian men. But for some reason, this game, which did very well for being a niche genre game with a low budget, was followed up with this:

Within weeks after the release, the company shut down, saying that the newest game’s sales did not justify the studio continuing to exist. That game was released in 2023, presumably having been developed during the Black Lives Matter movement, and apparently, putting black women as the face of your game is just what game developers, including indie devs who were not under any kind of corporate pressure, thought they were supposed to do.

You can come up with all of these theories about BlackRock ESG programs to explain why Ubisoft or Activision-Blizzard went full “niggermania,” but there is no obvious explanation as to why a small indie company would do this other than they thought it would make them money. Clearly, this doesn’t work, and now when people see a black woman on the cover of any entertainment product, they register it as a personal attack. It’s not simply that people don’t relate to black women, although that is certainly part of it. Because this movement in entertainment was associated with the BLM movement and a larger anti-white movement, the kind of person who is going to play an indie real-time tactics game immediately registers the inclusion of blacks where they didn’t used to be as an attack on their immutable characteristics.

In the current situation, blacks (and particularly black women) are seen as barging into a place and demanding to control it. Of course, that was never really what was going on. Blacks rioting during BLM were doing these riots primarily because black people enjoy violence. Secondarily, black people hate the cops, and thirdly, they hate (or at least strongly dislike) white people in general. At no point did the blacks demand they get more roles in white people movies, or be featured in niche indie video games. If you let blacks make a list of their demands, “we want in them white people movies” would never come up. This was a very Jewish operation, saying “we’re going to make this your problem, whitey.” I’m not even defending the blacks, who are clearly a menace, I’m just saying that forcing them into entertainment media was a completely Jewish idea to attack white people. It also inspires even more loathing of the blacks in white people, which may or may not have been on purpose, but whereas no one blinked in the 1990s at a Blade film starring Wesley Snipes (it was actually very popular and good), now when you see a black face, you think “oh yeah, fuck you too then.”

Blacks were not historically banned from media, nor was it always looked at as an attack to include a black. Historically, blacks were included in American entertainment media either because they fit the role (i.e., playing a role of a black person, for example, a criminal or street pimp), because white people liked the black person (e.g., Wesley Snipes), or because the product was being sold to black people (e.g., the original Black Panther comic books).

The fourth reason that blacks would be in a product is if it was made by black people, generally targeted at other black people. When Tim Burton was attacked for not having enough black people in his films (there are literally none), it was before the 2020 BLM mania, and he started talking about how black people have their own films so there is no problem with his films being for whites. This is really the obvious answer.

The explanation then seems to be “well, blacks can’t make their own films, because of slavery.” Or something. I don’t exactly know what the explanation is. Well, the real explanation is “because Jews hate you.” But the ostensible explanation oscillated between “they have to take your films because they don’t have their own because of slavery” and “you have to look at them as punishment for slavery.”

But here’s the issue: Sinners is a good film. I am by no means recommending it, because I don’t think many of the readers will appreciate it. I think most of you have seen enough blacks and don’t want to see any more. Which is understandable and I agree with you, but I was interested in the film because it was popular – billed as the first hit of 2025 – and because it was a totally black film, written and directed by a black and starring mostly blacks.

Regardless of my lack of a recommend, it must be said: it is a totally competent film. I enjoyed it. Though simple, it was well-written and visually neat. I usually am not a huge fan of the “one guy plays twins” trope, but Michael B. Jordan does a good job with it. Everything about this film is fine. I don’t think it’s some cinematic masterpiece, but it is fine. It’s anti-white, I think. The evil vampire is an Irish folk singer who turns the blacks into vampires to use in his folk dances. Which is kind of too hilarious to be offensive. But the director, Ryan Coogler, adds a scene at the end (after what should have been the film’s conclusion) where the main character just kills a bunch of white people. I originally thought it was the studio that had requested he add a scene like this at the end, because aside from any politics, it takes away from the film, but the Wikipedia page says he had final cut rights. So I’m not endorsing anything about the message of the film. I just want to note that it disproves the idea that blacks need to force themselves into our films because they can’t make their own. Coogler – or as I like to call him “Coonler” or “a nigger” – is a fine writer/director and it is proof of concept that the blacks could be making their own films.

But, seriously, all my love to everyone involved with this film, I wish you niggers all the best. I wish you didn’t have to kill a bunch of white people every time you made a film, but it’s fine, I don’t care, and I’m actually able to sympathize with an Irish folk singer vampire whose goal is to get a bunch of niggers to dance jigs to his songs. And thanks for respecting our traditional music. We sure respected your traditional music, my black chappies.

(I want to note that there are Chinese people in this movie, which seemed like forced diversity in an otherwise almost all-black film. There weren’t any Chinese people in Louisiana or Mississippi or wherever this was in the interwar period. If there were any, they definitely were not integrated and speaking dialect with negroes. Frankly, replacing historically black roles with Asians felt very forced and bizarre.)

It seems like the Jews are currently backing off of the “forced diversity in entertainment media” program. At least partially. It’s unfortunate for indie game devs who destroyed their companies by going full niggermania, but I guess it’s good for society? Obviously, I don’t think having slightly fewer blacks forced into white films is going to help anything. At least not on its own. But we are witnessing a broader shift towards a rejection of Jewish values. Hopefully, the blacks can experience something similar. Maybe they are. I don’t really know that Kanye West is representative of the blacks and their feelings about things. But if they can make their own films, that is good. Much of the problems with the blacks are based on the issue of dependence on white people for everything in their lives. That creates resentment. They become like rebellious children angry at their parents. If they can gain some kind of independence, they can back off a bit and stop being such a nuisance.

The woke right is rising.

The Jews seem to be on the backfoot, not just on the world stage with their Israel project, but also domestically with their tranny/nigger/women program. But that really seems like a mirage. To me, it seems unbelievable that all of a sudden the Jews would just lose all this power for no reason. If there was some kind of religious revival and people were praying for a restoration of normalcy in the country, I could believe it. But that isn’t happening. Right now, we’re supposed to believe the Jews just all of a sudden surrendered and let everyone back on the internet for no reason.

Frankly, I don’t know what is happening. But it seems very unlikely to me that it’s totally straightforward and exactly what it looks like. I’m sure Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tim Dillon, Theo Von, Joe Rogan, etc. are all very nice people, but the idea that because Trump got “elected” in this sham system means that all of a sudden you can now just talk about the Jews on YouTube doesn’t make any sense to me at all and I don’t believe it’s what it looks like it is. I don’t know what it is but I don’t have to know what it is to not believe it. I can not believe anything I don’t want to believe. This system simply cannot function on even a medium-term timeline if people are allowed to talk about Jewish behavior and Jews have the ability to shut it down. Trust me, they have that ability. The only thing I can reckon is that they’ve run AI simulations where the amount of censorship we had previously was going to result in a violent uprising, so they rolled it back some, but it’s right now rolled back too far and there is going to be some kind of correction which will probably be a staged “far right terrorist attack.” That’s where I would guess this would go. Of course, I can’t predict the future; I’m not a wizard. I’ve never looked a gift horse in the mouth, but I’ve also never looked a Jew in the mouth and I’m not going to do so, ever.

It will be obvious that I agree with most of what he says here, but I also have some criticisms (this is my job, no?). But I will write those later. Right now, I just wanted to share a hilarious essay that it seems too few people are familiar with.

Full text follows. 

TANGENT

BY DAVE SIM

if the ensuing seems unduly harsh to male and female feminists (which it will since everything besides complete and abject surrender to feminism strikes male and female feminists as unduly harsh) there is, perhaps, some small feminist consolation to be had from the fact that, with the completion of “Tangent,” I intend to “have done” with the subject of gender and gender “issues” entirely: in much the same way that The Cerebus Guide to Self-Publishing constituted my “hail and farewell” to the subject of self-publishing. As with the Guide, “Tangent” represents a summing up of my conclusions about a subject which has occupied my attentions for a period of time and which I have resolved for myself in my own way and to my own satisfaction (and which I am now pleased to put behind me so that I can pursue other areas of interest to me).

PRE-TANGENT

Carol West resigned her position as Aardvark-Vanaheim’s Administrative Assistant (a very fancy feminist name for a very plain secretarial position: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and I don’t intend that ironically) after “inputting” a first draught of “Tangent” parts one and two. Her resignation, far from being either a surprise or a disheartening event, to me, seemed just the latest example of feminism undermining its own 30-year long campaign to be taken seriously as a societal movement by (literally) getting offended and leaving in a huff whenever it encounters any viewpoint which does not represent absolute capitulation to its own. At some point – whether the intervening period is measured in days, weeks, months, years, decades or centuries – At Some Point, feminism will, I am sure, at long last be forced to face a number of hard questions about its total lack of intellectual foundation. Carol West can get offended and leave, but the hard questions remain. My feminist readers can roll their eyes theatrically, but the hard questions remain. They can exhale noisily, but the hard questions remain. They can snort derisively, but the hard questions remain. They can, collectively, turn their backs, but the hard questions remain.

In the arena of intellectual opinion, when it comes to these hard questions, asking Dave Sim, “Why do you hate women so much?” is irrelevant when my subject is feminism’s lack of sound intellectual footing. It is irrelevant whether I hate women. It is irrelevant whether I love women. It is irrelevant whether I consider women in any emotional context whatsoever, just as – when my question is directed toward feminism’s lack of sound intellectual footing – it is irrelevant whether I hate ice cream, whether I love ice cream or whether I consider ice cream in any emotional context whatsoever. All That Is Relevant, when the issue at hand is my contention that feminism lacks a sound intellectual foundation, All That Is Relevant, Germane and/or Pertinent is the intellectual foundation – or lack of same – upon which feminism rests.

Walking away is not relevant. Rolling one’s eyes theatrically is not relevant. Snorting derisively is not relevant.

It seems to me that after thirty years, all thinking people must be coming to realize that these reactions – far from constituting a defence of feminism – lead, inescapably, in the contrary direction: lead, inescapably, to the fact that feminism has no sound intellectual foundation: that, in fact, feminism has only its own rapidly dwindling momentum and the sheer gall, chutzpah, nerve and inherent unreasoning contrariness of its perpetrators as its foundation, as its sole line of defence, as its single raison d’etre and as its solitary rationale.

Anyway, this is how I began:

TANGENT I

Having dispensed with the Hemingways (how many of you still think that Mary Hemingway – despite having murdered her husband – is a “strong, independent woman and a good role model for wives everywhere”? Show of hands. Almost all of you. Big surprise.) I now prepare for the next complete waste of my own time and energy: my promised “last word on gender” entitled “Tangent”.

* * * * * * *

All males (as opposed to men) sound like social workers and/or voodoo profession wannabe’s, so it came as no surprise – when the fellow turned to me and asked “Where do you think your ideas about women come from?” – and the saccharine undertone was there (“When we share our experiences with others, it helps us to get in touch with our innermost feelings and emotions”).

“Where do you think your ideas about women come from?”

Two things:

Foremost, they originate from the research that I did for Mothers & Daughters. Not the voluminous reading of everything from nurse novels to voodoo pop (My Mother, My Self; Our Bodies, Our Selves; Our House-pets, Our, Selves, et al) to Women’s Studies [“ . . . and after all correlatives of the societal norm have been maximized through the intuitive, the nurturing and spiritually nutritive, through the hard-won maturation of our collective emotive a priori dispensation-construct: regarded (herein) not as the mere imitative imposition of the aforementioned “will to power” (the now universally discredited patriarchal model) but a new model founded upon, to reiterate, the intuitive, the nurturing and spiritually nutritive, pursuant to, but not inextricably bound within the ad hoc antecedent culture and/or cultural imperative blah blah blah”]. All I got out of that research, I already knew: a) women want to be raped by rich, muscular, handsome doctors b) women are completely self-absorbed and, thus, see themselves in everything around them and c) feminism is no different from communism in that all of its literature is founded upon convoluted syntax, bafflegab and academic jargon which paints a false (albeit attractive) picture of an unattainable utopia which can be achieved – easily! – by everyone in the world simply and simultaneously (in both feminist and communist literature the “crux point” is invariable) changing their basic nature overnight. Acknowledging – (grudgingly) the small likelihood of so sweeping a societal change coming about on its own, “a rigorous and thorough program of (communist and feminist literature share an admiration for the euphemism) re-education may be called for.” That is, all “non-comrades, non-fellow travellers” must be subjected to unrelenting political indoctrination, sloganeering and brainwashing (“A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose!”).

(I sense that my situation with feminism is comparable to that of pre-1989 writers faced with the task of “debunking” communism: how extensive, lengthy and intricate an explanation can one pursue in explaining that two-plus-two do not equal five, but in fact, equal four without – even in one’s own view – treading well within the lunatic borders of the excruciatingly self-evident? I suspect that feminism, like communism, must be allowed to “strut and fret its hour upon the stage,” “playing out” its manifold absurdities until even the most ardent and most willfully ignorant “true believer” comes to realize – as has happened with communism – that “there is no there, there.”)

No. The research which most contributed to my “ideas about women” was the series of informal interviews I conducted with mothers and daughters – with mothers about their daughters, with daughters about their mothers, with daughters about their daughters, with mothers about their mothers. It was really the first time in my adult life that I spoke to women who I found physically unattractive and the first time I spoke to women with any motive besides getting them into bed. In the case of the attractive women that I interviewed, it was a guarantee that I was not going to get them into bed – “mothers and daughters,” as subject, existing at the opposite end of the conversational spectrum from those topics which lead to sex – and (knowing that) for the first time in my adult life the intellectual, reasoning, “writerly” part of my mind was engaged when talking to women.

For the first while, I couldn’t figure out what was wrong.

I’m usually a “quick study” when it comes to a given subject – the “high altitude mapping” as Alan Moore called it in our “Dialogue: From Hell” a few years back. It’s really what writing is made up of. Ask the hard questions, narrow the list of possibilities and work with the resulting template. As it turns out, nothing in the feminist psyche conforms to this model. All women are feminists and all feminist evidence is anecdotal. Ask them a question and they will tell you a little story. Ask them a question to clarify what you infer is the point of the story and they will tell you another story. When they do attempt to draw a conclusion or a larger inference from an anecdote they will often ask, “Does that make any sense?” And the answer, of course is (almost invariably) no, it doesn’t make any sense. And since I wasn’t trying to get any of them into bed, I would say so (if you’re trying to get them into bed, you always say “yes, that makes perfect sense” or manufacture some sensible interpretation that has nothing to do with what they said). Telling them that they don’t make sense, I found, is like telling them that not only do they not win the trip to Hawaii, they don’t even get the Samsonite luggage. They become forlorn and uncommunicative. That was when I realized that it was impossible to engage them on an intellectual, reasoning, “writerly” level – that is, in a purely matter-of-fact fashion. I had to act, had to portray myself as being happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful in order to maintain a level of . . .

. . . I don’t know what you would call it. It wasn’t communication in any meaningful sense of the term as I understand it. It was a kind of “emotional badminton.” I acted happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was her turn to act happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was my turn, etc. She might accidentally say something interesting where I could, with sincerity, say that I found what she had just said interesting. This temporarily escalated the level of her cheerfulness but, alas, that is all that it did: whatever was being said ranking a very distant second to maintaining and escalating the level of cheerfulness. A very, very distant second. I realized that this is where the “henhouse cacophony” originates. If “communication” within a group of women is working properly (as women see “working properly”) everyone should be talking faster and faster and faster and in a higher and higher musical range – either portraying themselves or being (the two states being deemed interchangeable in the female world) cheerful, more cheerful, “cheerfulest” – until, maximum cheerfulness having been achieved, a glass breaks or something.

That was when I realized that women are emotion-based beings. “Once a thing is seen, it can’t be unseen.” I gave a couple of more tries at relationships after that (a year-and-a-half and three-and-a-half years respectively) but it was really like solving a “brain teaser” after someone has given you the answer. You know – one of those puzzles where you are supposed to “make three triangles by connecting the dots using only seven lines” (or whatever). It can drive you insane for a month, but if you look in the back of the book, or if someone shows you how it’s solved or you figure it out on your own, there is little entertainment value to be had in endlessly drawing those same seven lines to make those same three triangles. Likewise, there is little in the way of intellectual value to be derived from revisiting – either mentally or “in person” the simple fact (once discovered), that women are emotion-based beings and that (consequently) any female-centred or female-originated political movement – more precisely, “political” “movement” – will lack sound intellectual footing. Hence, my billing of “Tangent” as “my last word on gender.”

Women are emotion-based beings.

One of the spillovers from Mothers & Daughters into Rick’s Story was Viktor Davis telling Rick, “Just be happy every waking minute of your life and you’ve got her for as long as you want her.” Which was really a perverse way for Viktor Davis to put it. It’s valid advice, but the “every minute of your life” was unnecessarily arduous (which Viktor knew but, in his willfully cruel way, thought he would add as a little “going away” present for Rick). It could be more appropriately phrased as: “If things aren’t going right, just act cheerful and say things in a musical tone of voice and everything will be fine.” Which they will, but, in my own experience, I found that that was no way to live. But even as I found that that was no way to live, I recognized there was no other way to live in the context. With an emotion-based being, your only choices are to narcotize her with a steady stream of cheerful, musical expression or manufacture a chaotic mixture of emotional portrayals to “wake her up” (“awake” being a purely relative term, of course, in referring to emotion-based beings). You can try being sensible and reasonable but all you’re going to get back is an emotion-based portrayal of sense and reason having nothing to do with sense and reason. An emotion-based being just attempts to reflect and/or portray what little emotion she can discern in sense and reason (“sombre,” “serious,” “earnest,” “non-musical”) and attaches the portrayal to an arbitrary stream of musical vocalizations having nothing to do with the subject at hand. This invariably provokes extreme impatience in the non-emotion-based being, to whose impatient expressions the emotion-based being will invariably respond: “Why are you getting so angry?” Impatience is not a happy emotion, but an identifiable one for an emotion-based being: “I was singing your sombre, serious, earnest, non-musical song with you and now you’re angry. Why don’t you just sing a cheerful song instead so we can both be happy?” To the emotion-based being, this makes perfect sense.

(All lengthy and thorough explanations being digressional, at this point the fellow asked, “Is this like that book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus?” To his credit, he hadn’t actually read the book. Neither have I. “There’s always a danger with those things,” I said. “I was in a bookstore and I saw the cover of the sequel, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Children Are From Heaven.” The fellow nodded readily. However, as there were a number of women eavesdropping in the vicinity, I thought it worth adding for their benefit, “If a man lowers himself to a woman’s level of fairy-tale metaphor – I mean, self-evidently men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus – women will invariably drag the discussion over into something comparable to Children are From Heaven smiling and chuckling and feeling really good about themselves.” “Children are From Heaven. Now we’re really getting somewhere.” The fellow nodded impatiently.)

Anyway, I just found that I couldn’t live that way. A woman is going to do whatever makes her cheerful at the moment and that, in my experience, is the extent of her perception of ethics. In order to maintain a relationship with an emotion-based being it is necessary to be cheerful about anything that makes her cheerful. Coupled with a “woman’s right to choose” as central ethic – or, rather, “ethic” – this involves a wide and variegated spectrum of feminist actions and behaviours and opinions. At one time, I rated sex as being very, very, very high on my list of life’s pleasures. Ultimately, for myself, the spiritual toll which was exacted by maintaining a rictus grin in the face of all feminist actions, behaviours and opinions across the full range of that spectrum made the price of sex too high – which, considering how highly I once rated sex as a pleasure is really saying something, I think.

This dovetailed with the “second source” in answering “Where do you think your ideas about women come from?”: my own decision to alternate periods of intentional celibacy (as opposed to “not getting laid”) with periods of monogamous sexual activity and semi-monogamous sexual activity. Having gone back and forth between the two states over the course of a decade, I can state unequivocally that celibate Dave Sim sees reality more clearly than sexually-active Dave Sim (who wilfully hypnotized himself into seeing the world in a manifestly untrue way and persuaded himself that feminist lies were true, that many feminist lies contained elements of truth, that feminist lies were not wholly untruthful). Surrendering an accurate perception of reality for a world of fairy-tale falsehoods was part of the high price of sex, a price I was no longer prepared to pay.

I got tired of Believing Five Impossible Things Before Breakfast.

(Odd to say that one out loud for the first time.)

“For instance?” the fellow asked.

“Well, take Government-Funded Daycare,” I said, “a central plank in the platform of the fairy-tale world emotion-based beings inhabit – Their belief/feeling that it is the responsibility of government to raise children. Feminists and their hollowed-out ventriloquist puppet husbands . . .

(. . . please bear with my use of that … admittedly . . . prejudicial phrase until I’ve had the chance to elaborate . . .)

. . . have universally adopted Government-Funded Daycare in principle. Not only is it fiscally irresponsible and an inherently unfair use of public funds (benefiting only those mothers who choose to work), it is diametrically opposed to a central tenet of any civilized society: that children are the responsibility of their parents to rear. When was the last time you even heard it described as ‘rearing children’? ‘You rear children. You raise hogs.’ What the feminists and their ventriloquist puppet husbands are talking about doing with Government-Funded Daycare is raising children as if they were a herd of interchangeable swine. No surprise coming from a gender which has no ethics, no scruples, no sense of right and wrong. Just hand the kids over to the voodoo profession, social workers, government bean counters and go along with whatever happens to be the Ethical Consensus du Jour. ‘Raise’ boys to be girls, ‘raise’ girls to be boys.”

How?

“Well, I’m sure I don’t know. I’m just Porky/Petunia’s mother. They have experts who know how to ‘raise’ boys to be girls and ‘raise’ girls to be boys. I’ll let them decide. Listen, I’d love to chat about this, but I have a meeting with a client at 9:00 and I’m going to be late as it is.”

This connected quite neatly with an article I had read in that morning’s Globe & Mail which said that some astronomical percentage of parents thought it was the responsibility of public schools to teach sexual morality.

I mean, that one just stinks of feminism.

“Homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice, completely normal.” “Homosexuality isn’t a choice, it’s a genetic reality” Oh. Okay. So (leaving aside the obvious fact that those two realities contradict each other) [my own view is that all sexuality is a matter of choice since it is not a life-sustaining necessity: what or whom you have sex with – or whether you have sex at all – is optional. I would not be here if it weren’t for sex, true, but if I choose never to have sex, I am still “here”], when do you want to start teaching this lifestyle choice/genetic reality in the classroom? What age? Six? Seven? Ten? Twelve? And how do you want to teach it? Bring in a couple of dykes and a couple of interior decorators to talk to a bunch of third graders?

“Well, I’m sure I don’t know. I’m just Porky/Petunia’s mother. They have experts on cultural diversity and alternative lifestyles now, don’t they? I’ll let them decide. Listen, I’d love to chat about this, but I have a meeting with a client at l0:30 and I’m going to be late as it is.”

But, this is way too many words for our CNN “Get To The Point News” Information Age, isn’t it? So, let’s distil Daycare and Government-Funded Daycare into short and concise Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast form:

1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who hand-rears her children full time.
2. It makes great sense for the government to pay 10 to 15,000 dollars a year to fund a daycare space for a child so its mother – who pays perhaps 2,000 dollars in taxes – can be a contributing member of society.

All you husbands and daycare daddies are just nodding like crazy. “Makes sense to me, Dave.” “Gotta have it. Government-Funded Daycare. No way around that. Gotta have it.” “A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose!”

For the benefit of the rest of my readership, I decided to compose a partial list of Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast (jotted down over the course of an hour while working on a Cerebus page – I figured a dozen or so would get my point across).

I’ll just continue the numbering from our Daycare entries.

3. A woman’s doctor has more of a valid claim to participate in the decision to abort a fetus than does the father of that fetus.
4. So long as a woman makes a decision after consulting with her doctor, she is incapable of making an unethical choice.

[I was going to allow the Impossible Things to stand alone and “hatch out” however they might in each individual reader’s mind once they had been planted – to mix a metaphor. However, in the aftermath of Carol West’s resignation, that seems unnecessarily naive, given the wilfulness with which the hard questions are ignored in our society. So, here, interposed, is my more elaborate opinion on abortion:

The far larger question, to me, is one of “what God therefore hath joyned together let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9). (This, so far as I know, being the only genuinely Biblical quotation – the Synoptic Jesus again, caveat emptor – in the otherwise wholly and completely secular Christian wedding ceremony is a major reason that I have no objection to gay marriages. I’m reasonably certain that marriage is a completely pagan, completely female invention no more sacred as an institution than are feminism or communism. It is, after all, called Matrimony and not Patrimony, isn’t it? I mean, duh.) It seems to me utterly foolish to ascribe virtually any of our society’s haphazard – literally “catch as catch can” – marriage unions to our Creator. In my view, an omnipotent and omniscient being simply wouldn’t have that lousy a track record.

Pregnancy, it seems to me, is an altogether different matter.

Inexplicable as it is that some acts of coitus produce offspring while others do not (despite the best efforts of medical science to establish irrefutable “laws” of cause-and-effect) it seems to me that here, God’s hand is very much in evidence and “what God hath joyned together let not man put asunder” – sperm and egg, fertilized egg and uterine wall – very much applicable. If abortion is, as the feminists insist, a matter of a woman having control over her own body, then I think a public demonstration of a woman willing herself to become un-pregnant or willing her fertilized egg to detach itself from her uterine wall would settle the issue once and for all. At which point I would happily go along with the secular-humanist consensus view.

But, of course, a woman no more has control over her reproductive functions – apart from abstinence – than she has over the number of hairs growing on her head or the colour of her eyes.

Thus, to me, “a woman’s right to choose” constitutes little more than an imbecilic paraphrase of “free will”. That is, we are all, by the grace of God, free to choose. That is what free will is. We can choose to commit murder, we can choose to steal, we can choose to commit adultery. The underpinning of the life of the God-fearing individual is that there is a price to be paid – sometimes in this world, sometimes in the world to come, sometimes in both – for choosing incorrectly. The ritual sacrifice of babies is well-documented among the pagan peoples named in the Torah and is, irrefutably, an abomination in the eyes of God.

Is abortion in the same category?

As a global civilization, here in the first nanoseconds of the 21st century the present consensus would appear to be “yes, no and/or maybe”. Half of us believe that abortion is in no way comparable. Half of us believe that it is. To me, all that is relevant is God’s opinion and – since medical abortion evolved well after the death of God’s Last Messenger and Seal of Prophets, Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 632 CE – that is unknown to us. It is unknown to me and it is unknown to you and it is unknown to Pope John Paul II, his predecessors and his successors. Likewise with God’s opinion on condoms (ribbed, coloured or plain) and birth control pills.

On the Last Day when all is made plain to us, I would not be terribly surprised – from my present vantage point of self-admitted absolute ignorance – to find that abortions and birth control will be indictable offences for some and non-indictable offences for others, based on God’s superior and perfect knowledge of each individual . . .  just as I would not be terribly surprised to find that abortion and birth control will be deemed murder, High Crimes against one’s own soul and (far worse) the soul of another . . . or to find that abortion and birth control are considered lesser transgressions against one’s own soul: more comparable to, say, smoking than to, say, murder. Genuine faith in God, it seems to me, brings one face-to-face with the profound level of one’s own ignorance about what is right and what is wrong, post-632 CE. The fact that the various church hierarchies refuse to acknowledge their own ignorance in no way alters my own belief that we are all ignorant in these areas. But, the bottom line, to me is a) we won’t know until the Last Day and b) “a woman’s right to choose” contributes nothing to the debate.

In my own sexually-active days, I found the idea of “a woman’s right to choose” to be more than a little “ethically convenient”. Had any of the women I had had sex with gotten pregnant (none did, so far as I know), I could just take the secular-humanist “high road” of saying that I believed in “a woman’s right to choose” thus (theoretically anyway) allowing her to assume whatever “karmic debt” or “spiritual burden” results from having an abortion while, on my own part, “escaping” with just the financial burden of a few hundred dollars for the cost of the operation. Even in my secular-humanist days it seemed just a little too, as I say, “ethically convenient” considering what was actually involved: the irresponsible initiation of a human life followed by the equally irresponsible (to me) eradicating of that human life. Two wrongs don’t make a right, at the point of greatest reduction. It seemed to me a double ethical pitfall and, no, I don’t blame women for that. Women have as natural an affinity for medical science as they had for its progenitor, magic. If there is something that women can make use of that, in their view, will provide them with immediate tactical gratification or relief from anxiety, they will make use of it and then welcome any voodoo-professional feminist ideology band-aid assistance in rationalizing away their (I think, natural) feelings of guilt – so long as the assistance/rationalizing comes “after the fact”. It is, in my view, part of a man’s ethical obligation to his own soul and to his Creator to endeavour to be (or become) sufficiently wary of this female trait and for men to not allow their penises to lead them down specific unethical paths where a man’s own fate in this world and possibly the next becomes “bound up” with those disposed (predisposed?) to believe in these sorts of “ethical conveniences”. In saying that, I no more believe that women are to blame in any way for those occasions when I allowed my own penis to lead me down specific unethical paths than, as an example, cigarettes are to blame for the fact that, a year and a half after quitting smoking, I still want to smoke a cigarette. “It was my choice to smoke my first cigarette at the age of eleven and it was my choice to smoke every cigarette I smoked thereafter.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled list of Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast, already in progress:]

5. A car with two steering wheels, two gas pedals and two brakes drives more efficiently than a car with one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake which is why marriage should always be an equal partnership.
6. It is absolutely necessary for women to be allowed to join or participate fully in any gathering place for men, just as it is absolutely necessary that there be “women only” environments from which men are excluded.
7. Because it involves taking jobs away from men and giving them to women, affirmative action makes for a fairer and more just society.
8. It is important to have lower physical standards for women firepersons and women policepersons so that, one day, half of all firepersons and policepersons will be women, thus more effectively protecting the safety of the public.
9. Affirmative action at colleges and universities needs to be maintained now that more women than men are being enrolled, in order to keep from giving men an unfair advantage academically.
10. Having ensured that there is no environment for men where women don’t belong (see no.6) it is important to have zero tolerance of any expression or action which any woman might regard as sexist to ensure greater freedom for everyone.
11. Only in a society which maintains a level of 95% of alimony and child support being paidby men to women can men and women be considered as equals.
12. An airline stewardess who earned $20,000 a year at the time that she married a baseball player earning $6 million a year is entitled, in the event of a divorce, to $3 million for each year of the marriage and probably more.
13. A man’s opinions on how to rear and/or raise a child are invalid because he is not the child’s mother. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman gets pregnant by herself.
14. Disagreeing with any of these statements makes you anti-woman and/or a misogynist.

So, how did you do, fellas? Don’t worry if there were a few statements there that you disagreed with. Just use a few of these handy feminist obfuscations, like: “Well, of course, these issues are very, very complicated,” Or “While I see what Dave is saying, I have to say that I agree more than I disagree,” Or “Of course, these issues are all ‘works-in-progress’. I’d like to hear a few more opinions before I make up my mind,” Or “There might be some inequality but compared to the centuries of women being oppressed it seems a small price to pay temporarily until it all gets worked out.” If you notice that none of these obfuscations has anything to do with any of the statements just keep repeating “A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose!” until you stop thinking and/or start to feel better.

Although I have given the husbands a hard time here, I am not without sympathy, having been one myself once. Husbands, it seems to me, are caught between the Rock of Feminism and the Hard Place of their own marriages: that is, capitulate or leave. “Deadbeat Dads,” to me, is a skewed feminist perception. It is not that men are deserting their families in many cases, so much as it is that they are being driven from their families by the pressure to Believe Five Impossible Things Before Breakfast, to capitulate, that is, to Feminist Ideology, to admit to the Orwellian imperative to believe that Feminist Lies are the Truth and that Masculine Truths are Lies. Reason can’t win in an argument with Emotion. Reason can capitulate to Emotion or Reason can leave. In either case Emotion, being without any sound intellectual foundation, will always find itself fully justified in its every action.

For feminists, for wives, for women, for Emotion-based beings, it is a win/win/win/win situation. Either her husband a) capitulates to her views and, thus, places himself and his assets under her jurisdiction or b) portrays himself to her as having capitulated to her views and, thus, places himself and his assets under her jurisdiction or c) removes himself from her jurisdiction and surrenders half of his assets to her voluntarily or d) removes himself from her jurisdiction and is forced to surrender half of his assets to her by the courts (Did you hear about the new Divorced Barbie? She comes with half of Ken’s stuff).

It is ridiculous to discuss equality between the genders as anything but a feminist hallucination until women agree to surrender their “right” to alimony. Of course women will never surrender alimony because they are not, contrary to their very vocal protestations, equal to men. A percentage of the female population is capable of providing, for themselves, the basic necessities of life. But it is a small percentage, indeed, when compared with the female population which relies on the largesse of boyfriends, husbands, ex-husbands, fathers and/or the government . . .

. . . and of that small percentage a still smaller percentage of the female population is capable of generating surplus wealth – that is, creating employment, creating excess capital which provides not only for themselves but for others. That still smaller percentage exists in numbers sufficient only to make possible banner headlines and full colour photo-spreads of anecdotal success stories in Cosmo and People magazines: anecdotal success stories which are evasive of a central reality: that for every much-celebrated, much-heralded female success story in a given profession, discipline, art or business, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of male success stories in that same profession, discipline, art or business which are unheralded and uncelebrated: which are “merely” the fiscal foundation of our society and the source of our society’s – and most feminists’ – material wealth.

If this is false, then women are self-sustaining. If women are self-sustaining, then alimony is unnecessary and must be eliminated.

If this is true, then equality between the genders is an hallucination, a cul de sac of delusional societal “thinking”.

Women are the chauvinists, not men. Nicholas Chauvin was a devoted soldier and overzealous supporter of Napoleon Bonaparte and all things French. Chauvinism is defined as “Unreasoning (italics mine) attachment to one’s race, group, etc.” To celebrate, herald and champion one woman publicly for doing what hundreds and thousands of men are doing in obscurity is chauvinism: unreasoning attachment to female achievement out of proportion to its contribution to society, just as Chauvin’s devotion to Napoleon and all things French was drastically out of proportion to the limited importance of Napoleon, the limited importance of the French.

TANGENT II

In the second of my five “Tangents,” I’d like to address what I see as the misapprehensions of those strangest of political bedfellows, the feminist-homosexualist axis.

I think it was a combination of emotional empathy for societal underdogs and short-sighted tactical blundering on the part of feminists which impelled them to champion the cause of homosexualists in tandem with their own. I think that homosexualists figure – as any thoroughly marginalized socio-political wallflower would have “Just say ‘yes’ to anyone who can get us out on the dance floor, girls.”

If it was scarcely a match made in heaven, the two constituencies were, at least, “well met”: with a shared unwillingness to perceive any reality larger than their own anecdotal prejudices, a shared tendency to deify emotions and feelings as the totems most central to their respective tribal groupings and a preternatural ability to simply ignore any view or opinion which did not reinforce those prejudices and which did not kowtow to those totems.

A certain amount of blame for the unholy feminist-homosexualist axis (my gut instinct informs me) fairly attaches itself to Gore Vidal and his – as I discussed earlier – pioneering view that everyone is bisexual by nature and that what is perceived to be “homosexuality” or “heterosexuality” are the “luck of the draw” results of what behaviourists (good voodoo professionals all) define as “imprinting”. That is (now, promise you won’t laugh), that the natural instinct which impels a newly-hatched duckling to identify the first large, moving shape it sees as “mother” is the same instinct which leads us to our initial sexual experiences and, thus, leads us to believe that we are “homosexualists” or “heterosexualists”.

There, but for the grace of Barbi Benton’s 1969 Playboy pictorial, go I (as it were).

Now, whether this notion of “interchangability as norm” originated with the homosexualists, the feminists or (as I say) Gore Vidal, it found in the 1960s and 70s nutrient-rich soil in which to further itself as a Large Societal Misapprehension. But, whereas Mr. Vidal (I believe) fashioned said notion as a means of “tactical seduction” (pretty, weak-minded young men found “fence-sitting” could be persuaded in contradiction of their own best and most natural masculine instincts – that it is more natural to “swing both ways”) (“just this once” being, I would suppose, rather more than adequately suited to Mr. Vidal’s presumably . . . eclectic . . . purposes): I believe that the “interchangeability underpinning” was appropriated by the “ladies” for “doings” that were to prove a good deal “darker” in the long-term. That is, it was appropriated for the advancement of the idiosyncratic feminist view that the genders are interchangeable and that all distinctions between male and female are imposed by an evil patriarchal society which must be overthrown. Of course, like any counter-conspiracy of such magnitude, once you get started there is always something else that needs doing. You begin with the subversion of language, the eradication of gender-specific nouns and one thing just leads to another. Counter-indoctrination – the feminist/communist-style program of re-education/brainwashing – must needs assert itself in the very earliest collectivist environments: kindergarten is too late if the Workers’ – er – Feminist Paradise on Earth is to be achieved in our lifetime. The feminists began to “ramp up” nursery school, pre-nursery school and pre-pre-nursery school. The entertainment field and the arts community needed to be co-opted, designers of androgynous fashions pressed into service.

If the early push to equip all men with purses was a failure (“Men wear purses in Europe,” one feminist interjected, a hint of desperation in her tone, when I mentioned the subject socially), still virtually all of us in my generation, men and women, were – and are – wearing jeans of one description or another. Such major victories, however, are Pyrrhic ashes in the mouths of those for whom ideology is an absolute. If “gender interchangeability” is the hypothesis then there can be no rest until all societal fashions resemble those of the various Star Trek pyjamas-as-street-wear incarnations: interchangeability must be total.

One of the earliest bastions to fall (and which is still in the hands of the People’s Revolutionary Government of Gender Interchangeability) was Academe. I believe that Gore Vidal alluded to the conquest – however obliquely – in the closing paragraphs of his essay “Edmund Wilson: This Critic and This Gin and These Shoes” (New York Review of Books, September 25, 1980):

But Wilson was quite aware that “things” in themselves are not enough. Professor Edel quotes from Wilson‘s Princeton lecture: “no matter how thoroughly and searchingly we may have scrutinized works of literature from the historical and biographical point of view . . . we must be able to tell the good from the bad, the first-rate from the second-rate. We shall not otherwise write literary criticism at all.”

We do not, of course, write literary criticism at all now. Academe has won the battle in which Wilson fought so fiercely on the other side. Ambitious English teachers (sic!) now invent systems that have nothing to do with literature or life but everything to do with those games that must be played in order for them to rise in the academic bureaucracy. Their works are empty indeed. But then, their works are not meant to be full. They are to be taught, not read. The long dialogue has broken down. Fortunately, as Flaubert pointed out, the worst thing about the present is the future. One day there will be no . . . But I have been asked not to give the game away. Meanwhile, I shall drop a single hint: Only construct! (emphasis mine)

Reading between the lines, I think, in one sense or another, after they had misappropriated his “interchangeability thesis,” representatives of the mad little band of checkers-playing Ivy League tacticianettes (the “type” perhaps best exemplified by Hilary Rodham Antoinette) took it upon themselves to – somewhat gleefully, I’m sure – keep Mr. Vidal abreast of their “progress” in getting everything “all mixed up” along what they perceived – in their own addle-pated female way – to be the lines of his own ideology of interchangeability.

What heady days those must have been! Nothing but patriarchal gravestones as far as the eye could see, as easily tipped over as a sleeping cow! No feminist track record to defend! It tastes good! Other women are doing it! Who cares? (A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose! A woman’s right to choose!)

“Only construct!”

Sincere advice or sabotage through reverse psychology? I mean, it’s both. So meticulous a student of human history, so scrupulous a scholar of historical times and tides as Gore Vidal would recognize that – if the feminist inversion of society was to have the merest chance of success – it would need to be grafted onto the existing body politic and nurtured in tandem with it. With a great deal of care and a little bit of luck (well, okay, a lot of luck), the new growth would prove more suited to its environment than that which it was seeking to replace and the “old growth” would expire of its own obsolescent-by-contrast nature and accord. There are any number of examples of this in the supplanting of one form of civilisation by a successor civilisation.

Of course it was probably a matter of months rather than years after Vidal’s sage advice to “Only construct!” that Feminism hobbled itself and its chance of success with a severe outbreak of deconstructionism – the political equivalent of a raging yeast infection that, left unchecked, shows every sign of becoming a terminal cancer. Attempts at remission by defining Deconstructionism as “Politically Correct” only awakened the intelligentsia to the disturbing parallels between feminism and communism, the shared jargon, the wilful disinclination to shape and re-shape an hypothesis out of the best available evidence, but to always – perversely – manufacture and pick-and-choose evidence purely on the basis of its ability to support a given hypothesis (the underlying motive, as an example, compelling women to starve themselves to death rather than accept the fact that their body type is different from that of their homosexualist “allies”).

Did Vidal count on the fact that women can always be relied upon to do the opposite of what they are advised to do by a man? Was his own horror at the prospect of the Hilary Rodham Plantagenets of this world actually taking control the underlying motive in his giving them such an invaluable, irrefutable, best course of action distilled down to two words (and an exclamation point!), knowing that they would ignore him and, thus, undo their own totalitarian ambitions through their own fundamental “contrariness”?

I wonder.

I have less frequently run afoul of homosexualist disapprobation than I have that of feminists but on one notable occasion, when I had written that I was “sickened” by the thought of male homosexual acts, I received a letter from a very famous and very talented gay graphic novelist (so far as I know there is only one gay graphic novelist so the first two guesses don’t count) asking me something along the lines of “how dare (I) find what he and his lover do together sickening?”

This is what I mean by the anecdotal prejudices of the feminist-homosexualist axis, their frame of reference narrowed to the limits of their own idiosyncratic and tiny societal reality.

It was not a matter that I had consciously chosen at some point to sit down and persuade myself, “You know, I really must develop within myself a profound physical aversion to what famous-talented-gay-graphic-novelist and his boyfriend do in bed with each other.” The aversion was there, is there, as it is (so far as I know) with most, if not all, heterosexual men having nothing whatsoever to do with famous-talented-gay-graphic-novelist or his boyfriend as human beings. Had I been inclined to respond, I could very easily have said, “How dare you presume to dictate to another person what is or is not an appropriate, natural physical reaction within that person?”

It seems to me that it is typical of the “ists” – communists, feminists and homosexualists – that they genuinely see “re-education” as viable and not a violation, tolerant and not totalitarian and that they have always failed to see – whether it is in their communist or feminist-homosexualist incarnation – that “politically correct” is an oxymoron. It is only the totalitarian who sees the goal of politics to be the determination of the One Right Way to Think and it is only the totalitarian who fails to recognize that politics is the vital give-and-take, parry-and-thrust – the on-going give-and-take and parry-and-thrust – implied by the existence of contending viewpoints. As an example, I firmly believe that feminism is a misguided attempt to raise women above their place, which I firmly believe is secondary to that of men. I firmly believe that homosexuality – not homosexualists themselves – belongs at the margins of society and behind closed doors. I firmly believe that it must be tolerated just as I firmly believe it should not be publicly celebrated. “In your face” celebrated, I mean.

But I do not envision a world – nor would I endorse a world – where the feminist and the homosexualist needed to be “re-educated” or “have their consciousness raised” (or whatever feminist-homosexualist euphemism you prefer for brainwashing, indoctrination and sloganeering) so as to compel them to make their beliefs conform to my beliefs. Nor do I become indignant when my beliefs are challenged. I am more than willing to sharpen and clarify distinctions between my own views and the views of others (as I am doing at considerable length here) and I am always more than content to “agree to disagree,” but I confess that it does trouble me a great deal when political arrivistes like the homosexualists and the feminists think that what engenders a natural visceral reaction in another human being should – or even could – be modified to suit their prejudices as to what that reaction in their view – should be.

I like to avoid “Nazi analogies” (totalitarian seems preferable to me as a less pejorative term), but when someone appears to imply that my reactions, my visceral reactions, my own thoughts, my own interior repercussive awarenesses need to be managed or modified or obliterated, I do, I confess, hear the heavy tread of the jackboot in the back stairwell of my psyche.

Where I most particularly take issue with the feminist-homosexualist axis is with what I see as their monomaniacal haste to blur all distinctions between “tolerance” and “celebration” of “alternative” lifestyles. While feminists, in my experience, tend to view themselves as being very much unshockable “been there, done that” veterans of jaded sexual world-weariness, I beg to differ. When placed alongside the multiplicity of hues which make up the full spectrum of sexual “orientations,” the “rainbow” of your average feminists’ sexual experiences will (I can practically guarantee) prove positively monochromatic by contrast.

As a civilized person, I am more than willing to tolerate the algolagnist in his or her proper place at the margins of society and behind closed doors. An Algolagnist Pride Parade is another thing entirely.

I am not sure how widespread irrumation and self-irrumation are but I am sure that its devotees are very fond of it. However, my tolerance of their preference does not extend to public demonstrations of it in the food court of my local shopping mall and, no, I do not consider my intransigence on the subject to originate from either bigotry or intolerance.

Purely on an aesthetic level and with a wincing eye on the rapidly aging Baby Boom population, I think the place for gerontophilia is very much “out of sight” and very much “out of mind”.

Scopophilia is, I rather suppose, more universal than not, both in its legal and illegal forms. To the extent that (in the former instance) it has a nearly insatiable need for volunteers on both sides of the equation, I do not think that – in a civilized world – handing out application forms on street corners or soliciting by telephone would be any great improvement on its present place in society.

if my argument here seems insufficient, then let me as quickly and discretely as possible (if discretion is even possible under the circumstances) raise the spectre of pre-mortem consent relative to necrophilia: undoubtedly the vilest imaginable form of “estate planning,” a genuine test of libertarian absolutism . . .

. . . and just one of the many malignant vistas which open before the eyes of the strategically-minded when the tactically-limited begin to advocate and to practice the public celebration – rather than the tolerance – of “alternative” lifestyles and cultural “diversity”.

The very adjective, “alternative,” and the very noun, “diversity,” are both dangerously open-ended, pregnant with hidden significance and subject to very broad and disastrous future extrapolations that the tactically-limited feminist-homosexualist axis chooses, persistently, to ignore.

A case presently before the Supreme Court of Canada seems relevant, concerned as it is with whether or not possession of child pornography is a crime. Doubtless much taxpayer money will be expended as the Justices wrestle their way through to the conclusion that – while possession of photographs or filmic records (8 mm., videotape) of actual children in states of undress acting or posing in sexual situations with each other or with adults constitutes evidence of the commission of a crime (corruption of the morals of a minor) and that, consequently, said photographs and filmic records are disqualified as private property – the same cannot be said of drawings of or stories about entirely fictitious children with other fictitious children and/or fictitious adults.

Repulsive? To be sure. No question about it.

But I think that a close examination of the laws governing the civilized world in our present day will show that any attempt to ban any kind of creative work ultimately and absolutely fails because our civilized laws dating back to 1066 require that there be a demonstrable danger of physical harm before the law can take my action. Certainly, the near universal repulsion that heterosexual men experience in considering the existence of male homosexual pornography has done little to stem the tide of public displays and celebrations of work that would have been universally deemed – even a mere fifty years ago – as depraved: many of Robert Mapplethorpe’s more explicit photographs as an example. Feminists relish heterosexual male discomfiture in these situations. They simply revel in it. But, I suspect their empathic emotions are going to take an awful beating when efforts to suppress imagination-based child pornography ultimately fail on the same basis which permits the dissemination and possession of homosexual pornography. (The feminist-led Supreme Court handed down its ruling in January of this year while I was doing corrections on “Tangent.” If anyone is interested in reading my opinion of that ruling, write in. I think the Justices made several fundamental errors that will come back to bite them on their collective feminist asses.)

The point missed by the feminists, I think, is that the slope between tolerance and celebration is a slippery one, indeed. if there exists a clearly demarcated line – which can be legally drawn – between allowing public celebrations of those sexual orientations of which feminists approve and disallowing public celebrations of those sexual orientations of which feminists disapprove, I would certainly be eager to read it in iron-clad and unassailable legalese. But I am reasonably certain that that line does not exist and can’t possibly be made to exist despite the frantic efforts that feminists will, I am sure, bring – much too little, much too late – to the proceedings when the time does come.

Allowing Gay Pride Parades is the “thin end of the wedge” and I think myself safe in saying that creeping incrementalism is the inevitable result of the – however well-intentioned – blundering of short-sighted “logic of the next step” tacticians and tacticianettes.

This danger posed by creeping incrementalism is, so far as I can see, the rationale behind the sensible (and, I daresay, masculine) solution of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Clinton Administration’s policy on gays in the U.S. military, much belittled (no big surprise) by the feminist-homosexualist axis.

As it becomes clear that there are any number of behaviours going on behind closed doors that any number of people find or would find personally abhorrent, it seems only sensible to restore privacy and confidentiality to sexual matters. Which, of course, matters of sexuality already had until feminists and the voodoo profession (“let it all hang out”) got hold of It. Although virtually all feminists are notoriously curious about other people’s private lives, notoriously inclined to discuss private matters with others and notoriously inclined to import this singularly female vice into the workplace (into which the unfairer sex have arrived en masse in the last thirty years), gossip-mongering, in my view, serves no good purpose. I’m not sure how one would argue against the proposition that society will proceed quite nicely and with a minimum amount of friction and abrasion if we all (All) remain wholly and completely unaware of the exact percentages of the population who participate in sexual activity A or sexual activity B and which of our friends and acquaintances do likewise.

Put another way, if we were to discover irrefutable evidence that a hitherto undetected majority of the population shares in the deviant sexual behaviour Ernest Hemingway confessed to enjoying with his pet cat, Boise, I fail to see any material benefit for society in having those individuals, collectively, make themselves known to us (“We’re Here! We’re Bestialists! And We’re Not Going Away!”) or what good might result from a Bestialists Pride Parade. I don’t believe I – or anyone else – needs to have our Bestiality Consciousness Raised and I don’t believe that either a Government- or Privately-Funded Study on Bestiality is worthwhile in any way.

In our society, whether we are consciously aware of it or not, if we have a name for “it”, then we tolerate “it”, whatever “it” is: at the margins of society and behind closed doors.

It seems to me that the next logical step is for everyone to agree not to talk about their own little precious “it” unless they are reasonably certain that they are in the company of like-minded devotees.

[While I was finishing “Tangent II,” Comics Journal 228 arrived In the mail with a review by a Miss or Mrs. Ruthie Penmark entitled “Dori Seda: Champagne Pissing Dog Fucker or First Great Woman Artist?” which begins, “I do not fuck my dog.”

No further questions, your honour.]

Although I firmly believe, for the reasons stated, that the place for homosexuality – again homosexuality, not those who practice it – is at the margins of society and behind closed doors, I do not believe that homosexuality is necessarily a sin.

According to Luke’s Gospel (17:21) when Jesus was asked by the Pharisees “when the kingdom of God should come,” Jesus is quoted as saying in reply,

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed: the one shall be taken and the other shall be left. (17:34)

Two women shall be grinding together: the one shall be taken and the other left. (17:35)

I think it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that there might be some other reason for two men to be in a bed. Women, sure. Just a sleep-over. Women are like that.

But men?

I don’t think so.

Juxtaposed with the “two women . . . grinding together” . . .

Whichever of the disciples it was (they were all, presumably, nice orthodox Jewish boys) who recounted Jesus’ reply to Luke, I would doubt that he or they knew what the reply meant, but I would assume that Luke – a Greek physician – knew exactly what the reply meant.

These two verses are followed, in the Authorized Version of the Bible, by 17:36:

Two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left

which, I suspect, was added by a later hand (whose owner also knew exactly what the reply meant and thought that what the reply meant ought to be changed). The marginal note in my King James 1611 facsimile rather dryly remarks:

This 36^th verse is wanting in the most of the Greek copies.

“No doubt,” I remember thinking to myself.

Aside from my ambivalence about the Synoptic Jesus which I have voiced elsewhere, it seems to me an open question (whose answer, like the answers to so many questions, is known only to God) as to what these two verses mean, specifically: whether they refer to a specific male homosexual and a specific lesbian who will be saved on the Last Day (too literal an interpretation in my view), whether half of all male homosexuals and half of all lesbians will be saved on the Last Day (less literal, but perhaps still too literal an interpretation) or if it means, in the more general sense, that according to the Jesus of Luke’s Gospel, homosexuality per se doesn’t automatically disqualify a soul from being saved and that homosexuality exists somewhere on the “sin spectrum” between murder and (let’s say) bad hygiene – at a position closer to the latter than the former.

Or (perhaps) at the very least, closer to bad hygiene than murder than the entrenched custodians of the Law of Moses, the Scribes and the Pharisees, would have held in the 1^st century of the Common Era.

TANGENT III

(Leaving aside those males who, in the words of a cartoonist friend of mine, “aren’t women trapped inside men’s bodies – they’re just crazy . . . ”)

No one wants to be a woman.

If, prior to our life on this earth, we were presented with the option of being male or female, a short description of the functions of the male versus the female genitalia (with emphasis on menstruation, menstrual cramps, PMS, labour pains, yeast infections, et al) would most certainly result in so vast a number of us choosing the male “equipment” (what, is this a trick question?) that it is difficult, if not impossible, to envision any woman being born into this world at all.

To me, it seems less a case of penis envy (Sigmund Freud having lived in altogether too chivalrous a time period for such “plain talk” as I offer here) than it is one of vagina abhorrence from the standpoint of the “would-be tenant” in contemplating a role as “owner-proprietor”. Alas, for reasons known only to our Creator, (almost exactly) half of us come out on the losing end of the coin toss. If things seem pretty “even steven” (leaving aside the fact that a penis, self-evidently, constitutes an anatomical “presence” and a vagina, self-evidently, an anatomical “absence”) over the course of the first ten or eleven years in the life of a boy and a girl there does, alas, “come the day . . . ”

It would take a very hard-hearted individual, indeed (someone like myself, for instance) to find anything amusing in the level of Mortification at the Sheer Cosmic Unfairness of It All with which a young girl must greet the news that every twenty-eight days or so for decades-upon-decades stretching as far into the future as a ten- or eleven-year-old can possibly conceive – that a “little friend will be coming to visit”. A “little friend” who (it seems) will be just as catastrophic and humiliating a mess as the one who has (just now) paid a first most unwelcome social call.

No one wants to be a woman.

Taxing the limits of my own not-inconsiderable imagination, I have no doubt that had I a “little friend” who paid me such “visits” – in a desperate attempt to cling to what remained of my sanity in the aftershock of the full extent of the horrible news “sinking in,” I am certain that I would very quickly set about the business of manufacturing a fairy-tale world for myself in which I was – in all other regards – indistinguishable from a gender which does not . . .

. . . leak?

No one wants to be a woman.

But, to me – unless you have been forced, by virtue of being a husband (caught between the Rock of Feminism and the Hard Place of your marriage), to hollow yourself out and Believe any number of Impossible Things Before Breakfast – the fact that no one wants to be a woman in no way validates entrenching the misapprehension (either in law or in societal custom) that men and women are interchangeable. To do so, it seems to me, is to once again march in lockstep with the communist model of picking and choosing evidence for its ability to support a given hypothesis rather than framing an hypothesis from the best available evidence.

To me, the best available evidence in terms of gender, is that – in the two-gender human “race” between man and woman and their (respectively) “present” and “absent” genitalia, with the arrival of the “little friend” in the feminine camp and with no analogous “little friend” arriving in the masculine camp – men take the gold medal and women, alas, take the silver. It seems to me that women have the option of saying “we are the losers” or they can say, “we win the silver medal.” The glass is half-full or the glass is half-empty.

But – whichever assessment seems to best reflect womankind’s view of its unchangeable circumstance – gender interchangeability (looking as objectively as I can at the best available evidence) amounts to biological “social-climbing” on the part of women, just as the attempt to make homosexuality and heterosexuality interchangeable amounts to societal “social-climbing” on the part of homosexualists.

The urge deep within the female breast towards interchangeability, towards “crowding the centre,” is not limited to striving to make her gender interchangeable with the masculine gender, homosexualists interchangeable with heterosexualists. The idiosyncratic female view that “everything is basically the same as everything else,” that distinctions should not/do not and do not/should not exist anywhere, that “discrimination” is solely a pejorative (as Frank Miller adroitly pointed out at one time, when he orders steak instead of hamburger in a restaurant he is committing an act of discrimination) also finds expression in their belief/feeling that children are (more or less) interchangeable with adults and that they should be treated as such: that the imposition of any kind of discipline on a child by its father is simply patriarchal tyranny, an abuse of power which can lead only to the child experiencing lifelong voodoo profession trauma. Children, like adults, have inalienable human rights (goes the screw-loose approximation of female “reasoning”) and must, therefore, be allowed full license to pursue – with the imposition of as few external limitations as possible – what children perceive to be their own best interests.

The end product of this “reasoning” is on display in the food court of any shopping mall in the soon-to-be-completely-uncivilized world on any given Saturday afternoon.

New Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast:

15. Children must be allowed to raise themselves and determine for themselves what does and does not constitute ethical, responsible behaviour.

What is at issue, it seems to me, is the dichotomy which exists between the masculine and feminine interpretations of “out of the mouths of babes . . . ”

To a man, this aphorism implies that “although children are unshaped and incomplete beings until they reach the age of their majority, it is an interesting naturally-occurring phenomenon that – apropos nothing and even in the earliest stages of verbal communication – a child will, on rare occasions, voice an observation which, in defiance of all rules of logic, is actually germane and relevant to an adjacent conversation taking place on a much higher plane of sentient communication.”

The feminine interpretation tends more in the direction of “. . . because children are, indeed, from Heaven and are pure and untainted and good and decent and true in all regards, full of pure love and joy and compassion and innocence, their utterances, likewise, are pure and untainted and good and decent and true in all regards and the sooner we can all set our hearts on a quest to find the purest and least minted and most decent six-year-old in the world and appoint him/her leader of the civilized world and do whatever he/she tells us to do without question, the sooner we will arrive at the utopia which is always just there over the rainbow.”

Put another way, I think the Prophet Isaiah’s well-known prognostication, “And a childe shall lead them . . . ” is one to warm the hearts of dim-bulb women everywhere and to chill the soul of every God-fearing man. It also seems to me that, with the feminist takeover of Academe and the media and feminist infiltration of the world’s governing councils, we are probably a number of steps further along that particular “yellow-brick road” as well – and probably a good deal further along than we were in Isaiah’s 8th century BCE.

Being a firm believer that statistics can be manipulated to support any argument, I tend to avoid them – except in those instances where the margin is so great as to imply (even with the greatest allowance for statistical error) that “something ain’t kosher in Milwaukee” (the “95% of alimony and child support being paid by men to women,” being a good example).

When it comes to the problems posed by feminists endeavouring to “crowd the centre” by attempting to make children interchangeable with adults, I offer the statistic that one of the very few categories of crime which is increasing, rather than decreasing, in our society is that of Youth Crime, which is reportedly up a whopping 35% over the period 1990-1999.

I think myself safe in saying that this is a direct result of the implementation in our society of the feminist view that anything is better than having a father rear his child in the traditional way that worked for centuries upon centuries (mother, with her idiosyncratic notions of love über alles, in charge of daily, minute-by-minute custodial care and – “Wait ’til your father gets home” – fathers in charge of the setting of boundaries and the imposition of discipline and “course corrections” when an attempt is made to breach those boundaries). To the feminist, anyone is preferable to the father being in charge of a child’s upbringing: social workers, daycare supervisors, girlfriends, homosexualists, how-to books, Oprah Winfrey, the voodoo profession, security guards at the mall, teachers – even the child itself is more readily trusted than not-so-dear old Dad.

In my view, women want too much to be loved unreservedly for them to be entrusted with “setting a course” for a child’s development. Coupled with their misbegotten female notion that the source of their own unhappiness has always been “not being allowed to do exactly what they want exactly when they want”, they strive to create happiness in their children by letting their children do exactly what they want exactly when they want. A recipe for disaster, of course, but then men, with their long experience with the unfairer sex, could tell them that you can’t have both. If a father or a boyfriend or a husband lets his wife and/or girlfriend do whatever she wants whenever she wants, what he will get from her – far from unreserved love – will be wilful condescension coupled with varying degrees of contempt. She will blame him that absolute freedom does not result in absolute happiness. And likewise do children. With no masculine discipline imposed upon them, no boundaries to be observed which can’t be transgressed simply by wilfully doing so – or by playing mother’s “heart on her sleeve” emotions like a concert violin – the result is never absolute happiness but, rather, a state more closely resembling absolute misery and the mother (as the source of that misery) and the father (as duplicitous abdicator of his own authority) being treated with the aforementioned wilful condescension and varying degrees of contempt.

Ideology being an absolute in the feminist world, this causes yet another instance of selecting evidence to support the given hypothesis, another Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast:

16. When one is loved unreservedly, one is treated with wilful condescension and varying degrees of contempt.

“Aren’t men to blame for any of this?”

Well, yes. I think it would be impossible to underestimate the degree to which men are fully culpable for the rise in Youth Crime, specifically through allowing feminists and the voodoo profession to persuade us that discipline – both physical and verbal – are “old hat” and part of a discredited “patriarchal model”: that discipline, in any form, is synonymous with abuse. To me, taking it as a given that reason cannot prevail in any argument with emotion, there must come a point – with women and children – where verbal discipline has to be asserted, and if verbal discipline proves insufficient, that physical discipline be introduced. Women and children have soft, cushy buttocks which are, nonetheless, shot through with reasonably sensitive nerve endings.

I believe that those buttocks are there for a very specific purpose intended by their Creator.

There is no good reason that a man should not listen to misguided, fairy-tale vocalizations and unsound, emotion-based twaddle-and-nonsense for however long it amuses or interests him to do so or for however long seems to him politic and/or chivalrous (standards will vary).

However.

When the point does arrive when the amusement value has exhausted itself or good manners and chivalry have been stretched to their limit, “That’s enough,” spoken firmly, distinctly and above a conversational tone – with women and children – should be sufficient. If it proves insufficient, measured blows to the buttocks – “measured,” to me, meaning blows which, cumulatively, leave no mark which endures longer than, say, an hour or two but which will make sitting down an uncomfortable proposition for a comparable length of time, blows which are an inescapable consequence of failing to heed the verbal “that’s enough” seem the only sensible way to evenly balance the unfair advantage emotion has over reason. This, to me, falls well short of actual physical abuse but exists well within the upper registers of “attention-getting devices” for those women and children who have proven themselves to be of inadequate and/or unfocussed attentions.

Of course, in our present society, with its feminist-infected judiciary, any husband/father following this sensible course of action would very quickly run afoul of the voodoo profession and the law and find himself up on charges of common assault or domestic violence and (more likely as not) sentenced to “ist” style “re-education” in the feminist way of doing things. In our feminist-infected, feminist-misdirected society the husband/father really has only two courses of action open to him: a) capitulate to feminism or b) leave.

I think it safe to say that women/feminists – having adopted Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast numbers 15 and 16 (collect them all!) in place of verbal and physical discipline for their children (and in light of that 35% increase in Youth Crime) – have demonstrated that they are incapable of either understanding or administering discipline.

Slow-witted to the point of catatonia as feminists have, time and again, proven themselves to be when their emotions tell them one thing (“absolute freedom makes children happy”) and reason tells them another (“children need firm parentally-imposed discipline, both verbal and physical, and I, as a feminist, am not capable of administering either”) there is little hope that this situation will change anytime soon. It is, as is always the case, foolish in the extreme for men to concede any philosophical territory to feminists for exactly that reason. Caught between what her emotions are telling her and what reason plainly indicates, a feminist is capable of vacillating for decades (if not centuries) before conceding any self-evident point.

Yes, I believe that men must shoulder more than their fair share of the blame for the sorry state of affairs in so many areas of our misguided Feminist society. It is a natural mistake to assume that perception-is-perception-is-perception, but that in no way mitigates the blame that must attach to men for so carelessly overlooking for so long the dichotomy between masculine and feminine perceptions.

Take, as an example, the late Charles Schulz’s wonderful comic strip, Peanuts.

We all loved Peanuts, right? We were all reading the same strips and we were all laughing at them. If anything was a shared enthusiasm of men and women, an example of gender interchangeability, it was that We All Loved Peanuts (particularly in its hey-day in the 60s and 70s).

But, it occurs to me, that the masculine and feminine perceptions of the strip were very, very different.

Men, I think, enjoyed the ridiculousness of the premise: a bunch of six-year-old kids talking like adults. One of my favourite strips had Schroeder coming out to the pitcher’s mound where Charlie Brown says something to him about how it’s driving him crazy how badly the team is playing. And Schroeder says, “Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards”. Charlie Brown, of course, asks, “What?” And Linus comes out to the pitcher’s mound and says “It’s from the Book of Job, it means . . . ” and suddenly all of the kids are out at the pitcher’s mound debating the Book of Job (with Lucy, of course, grousing, “What about Job’s wife? I don’t think she gets enough credit!” Job’s wife, with her immortal advice as to how Job might escape his ordeal: “Curse God and die.”)

A nice balance, the ridiculousness of children talking about these adult concerns with a little low-grade theology into the bargain.

But, I think for women, this was evidence that “finally, at least one man ‘gets’ it.” “Gets” what? “At least one man understands that children are adults and we should be treating them as adults.”

The “out of the mouths of babes” thing:

“If we would just do what the children are telling us to do, we could have all the world’s problems straightened out in a week-and-a-half!”

Ah.

You don’t believe me. “No, Dave. I think you’ve gone too far with that one. Give me one concrete example of Feminists treating children as adults.”

Elian Gonzalez.

To me, there is a clear and perfect example of Feminism Run Amuck in our society. There is an example where, for a period of many, many months, it was “up in the air” as to whether or not a six-year-old . . .

1. Six.Year. Old.

. . . was or was not going to be granted the right to apply for political asylum.

Political. Asylum.

And who represented the “yay” side? You got it. Feminist social workers and the voodoo profession. I remember being moved to wonder if Dell Publishing had had the opportunity to publish a Children’s Big Golden Book of Marxist Theory or if Mattel had gotten the See-and-Say version of Das Kapital into Toys R Us in time to make a useful contribution to the proceedings.

I believe that every hollowed-out ventriloquist-puppet husband from Bill Clinton on down who allowed such a travesty to proceed for longer than nine or ten minutes – yes – I think they are very much to blame and are wholly culpable for dramatically worsening the Feminist mess in which we find ourselves.

Which leads me to another example of feminist sloganeering: “Child poverty”.

Gosh, I know what you mean. Before I was ten years old, I doubt that I ever grossed more than a hundred dollars a year.

That’s insane. There is no such thing as “child poverty”. Children are not poor and children are not rich. There is no such thing as a white-collar child and there is no such thing as a blue-collar child. Children do not file income tax returns. Children do not pay rent or arrange mortgages.

We are back in the realm of two-plus-two does not, in fact, equal five. The best evidence we have available would seem to indicate that two-plus-two, in fact, equals four, instead. You can debate the point if you wish, but I can scarcely imagine on what basis you intend to do so. So, let me just reiterate for the benefit of the emotionally-impaired:

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Child. Poverty.

As a caring and compassionate society, we give to unwed mothers, unemployed mothers, unemployable mothers, unemployed ex-wife/mothers and unemployable ex-wife/mothers – gratis – a completely and entirely unearned income, the amount of which – relative to 90% of the world’s population – can only be conservatively estimated as being somewhere in the vicinity of mind-bogglingly indescribable wealth. And let me – quite uncharitably – point out that the decision to do so was made by men at a time when women were as rare as hen’s teeth in the legislatures and governing councils of our civilization.

We are, as men, perfectly aware that the vast majority of women are incapable of providing for themselves, let alone providing for their offspring. This is the underlying motivation in the development of welfare as we know it and the use of discrete euphemisms like “welfare” and “mothers’ allowances” instead of “bovine charity” and “bimbo subsidies”. I break ranks with my own chivalrous gender to point out that – when the loony left of Canada’s own Political Action Committee on the Status of Women stages a protest on Parliament Hill (as they did in the fall of 2000) demanding a) greater independence and b) more social programs – they make themselves irretrievably ridiculous in the eyes of anyone capable of coherent thought.

Feminists will always want more money from men, more money for unemployed and unemployable mothers. Because men are, in the main, compassionate and charitable fellows collectively, feminists tend always to get the money that they seek. If men are, collectively, too chivalrous (present narrator excepted) to point out the extent to which the whole sordid process undermines the feminist hallucination in toto – to point out (as an example) that “equal pay for work of equal value” is already The Rule as it has been The Rule for centuries, that it is, in fact, the Central Reality of our (largely) free market economy and it is only that women’s work, on the whole, is of lesser value as determined by that (largely) free market economy (whereby, for instance, the value of the work of a self-publishing cartoonist like myself is established by The Rule of that free market as being considerably less than that of many, many other cartoonists and that of many, many other disciplines and professions) – it might be hoped that women would reciprocate by being so good as to desist from attempting to propagate any further the delusion that children are poor.

Children are not poor.

Children are children.

A child’s wealth is the depth and breadth of interest and attention and caring and discipline and time (not quality time but quantity time) which is given to it by its parents with an eye to shaping it into a worthwhile adult.

Children are not poor.

Single mothers are not poor.

People in Thailand are poor. People in Malaysia are poor. People in Iraq are poor. People in San Salvador are poor.

As a single mother, you are merely less indescribably wealthy than you would like to be. Which – considering that it was your own series of unwise choices which brought you to the situation in which you find yourself – seems somewhat less a cause for either hand-wringing anxiety or “give ’til it hurts” generosity which you seem always to think are the only two appropriate reactions to yourself and to your “better off than 90% of the world’s population” circumstance.

I am a firm believer in the Islamic notion that the community has a right to a specific share of each individual’s accumulated wealth – quite apart from whatever share is accounted for by taxes. There is no direct English translation for zakat, but that is, roughly, the concept behind it. Alms-giving-as-taxation, to feed the hungry in your own geographic community (I donate to the Food Bank of Waterloo Region). But my belief in and adherence to the zakat in no way diminishes my revulsion at the feminist effort to make children interchangeable with adults, to describe children as either poor or rich with, in short, the feminist tactical effort to entrench this view-point in law so as to increase the unearned income of unemployed and unemployable women by establishing a guaranteed income for each child (which incomes would, of course, become the property of the custodial parent – three guesses who that turns out to be). If this is not the sleazy, greedy and underhanded long-term motive behind the misuse of the term “child poverty” by feminists in the industrialized countries, I apologize, but I think it is ridiculous to entertain the idea that feminists have any other tactical objective in mind.

It is another example of feminists “crowding the centre,” attempting to make women interchangeable with men, homosexualists interchangeable with heterosexualists and children interchangeable with adults. To me, it is nonsensical. It is an Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast. And yet, increasingly, it is the way we conduct our society.

Yes, men are very much to blame. Take the minor hit movie which spawned a sequel or two: Look Who’s Talking. Is there any more universal a masculine trait than to supply a comedic voice for a baby – to narrate the unthinking and insensible gestures and expressions of a wholly unshaped and incomplete human-being-in-the-raw-material-state and to give it a thinking, sensible, humorous and ironic context far, far, far, far in excess of that being’s actual aptitudes and abilities?

And could there have been any more universal a mistake made by men in doing so? A harmless bit of fun?

Perhaps, but then a man is always aware that a baby is a baby and an adult is an adult It seems to me that men are culpable for missing – missing completely and thoroughly – that the same cannot be said of a woman’s awareness. In fact, with a woman, as an emotion-based being, exactly the opposite is true. To a woman, a baby, for all intents and purposes, as a being self-evidently capable of feeling emotions and capable of displaying emotions and vocalizing emotions, to a woman, in all ways which are vital or important or significant to a woman . . .

. . . a baby is interchangeable with an adult.

So what is a game, a harmless diversion, a source of entertainment to a man, merely reinforces a central and (to me) imbecilic female conceit. If women did not necessarily believe, in context, that the baby was actually saying and/or thinking, “Uh, y’mind passin’ me that bottle there, Mac?” all that did was reinforce for them that their perception of what was going on in that tiny cranium was the more accurate of the two (“Daddy is being so silly”), reinforce for them that their own predisposition to believe that life begins with the first visible expression of emotion and that – once visible emotion and vocalized emotion exist in a human being – anything which is grafted onto that being later (intellect, reason, literacy, etc.) is really just window-dressing. At best, secondary. At best, tangential. And reinforced for them that men – fathers – were and are frivolous individuals who perceive babies (and, as a consequence, everything else) inaccurately. Considering how dramatically limited the female intellect is, yes, I think that men are very much to blame for allowing a profound misapprehension like that to flourish in the female “brain”.

TANGENT IV

It gets worse.

To me, it gets far worse when it comes to the animal kingdom and there, again, I think men must shoulder more than their fair share of the blame.

In the same sense that it is true that women see themselves as interchangeable with men, homosexualists as interchangeable with heterosexualists, children and babies as interchangeable with adults, it is also true, for the most part, that women believe that animals are interchangeable with human beings.

I believe, for the sake of appearances, they will allow themselves to be bullied into acknowledging that there is a distinction:

“Uh, you do realize that your cat is just a cat. That a cat is a very low form of life.”

Yes, pushed to the wall and having to, you know, say it out loud, to a man, a woman will grudgingly admit that a human being is a human being and a cat is a cat. But she is certainly not going to he amenable to exploring the subject to any great depth.

“That is, you are aware that, no matter how much time and effort you devoted to doing so, you could never teach your cat to play even the simplest card game, like Hearts.”

That’s true. I know that little Snowball will never learn how to play Hearts.

Inside, I can practically guarantee you that what she will be thinking is: Well, so what? I know lots of people who have never learned how to play Hearts, and/or What’s so special about a stupid card game? and/or I think it’s more important what’s inside a person than whether or not they can play cards. Even calling female attention to this, making them laugh at the absurdity of it (I hope making them laugh at the absurdity of it: otherwise we are all inhabiting a Circle of Hell far closer to the innermost ring than I have hitherto suspected) will, I am entirely certain, in no way modify the fact that this is the way they think – or, rather, “think”: with their hearts, first and foremost, their love for little Snowball or little Whatever-It-Is dictating the fairy-tale foundation upon which their lives rest: that little Snowball and Mummy are just two peas in a pod.

“Mummy.”

Consider that one, if you will, gentlemen.

As the comedienne, Rita Rudner, put it, “My husband and I just got a dog. Now, he’s not a child substitute. At least, that’s what his pediatrician tells us.” At one level – you know, confined to the kitchen, the laundry room, the backyard – however inherently stupid, there is a charming, amusing and whimsical quality to that – less charming, less amusing and less whimsical when one realizes that women are out in the workforce now. Many of them occupy positions of authority. And they are allowed to vote.

Sensitive as the antennae on an ant as the average feminist is to the slightest nuance or hint of depredation (however inadvertent) which might in any way cast aspersions on her Inviolate Status as Citizen and Fully-Fledged Human Being, still it is the pleasure – nay, the pride – of many, many, many of them to refer to themselves as the “Mummy” of feral and insensible beasts and to “kiss” on the mouth a creature which uses its tongue to keep its anus clear of feces.

Here, again, the masculine gender must shoulder more than its fair share of the blame for this deplorable state of affairs, most especially for the historical decision to allow animals in the house. Clearly, this came about through the fault of fathers surrendering to the weakness they experience in dealing with their daughters. No lofty trajectory of the imagination is required to envision the centuries of pleading that must have gone into the winning of that first victory by a daughter over her father: inclement weather, undoubtedly, serving as the thin end of the wedge . . .

“Please, Papa, it’s freezing outside.”

. . . and, in the succeeding years, the rest of the civilizational barricades between man and beast falling like dominos. (Well, all right, just this once) KLUNK (Well, all right but he stays in the entryway) KLUNK (Well, all right, but keep him in the kitchen) KLUNK (Well, all right, but keep him on the hardwood) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay on the floor) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay at the foot of the bed) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay on top of the covers) KLUNK

Who can doubt that we’re only a generation or two away from “Well, all right, but don’t give him the good china”?

It’s not hard to see the question that that first capitulating father asked himself and which each successive father asked himself as each successive societal barricade fell:

“Where’s the harm?”

The harm, I believe, as we are seeing now, is that women quite literally don’t know whether they are human beings or animals. Nature reflects and there is, to me, a fundamental danger to society in the undeveloped, tactical, emotion-based female “mind” staring lovingly into the eyes of a feral beast which derives interchangeable pleasure from eating, sleeping and licking feces from itself . . . and with that female “mind” identifying her-(it-?)self with that feral creature and (the crux of this part of my thesis) persuading herself that she has more in common with a feces-licking creature than the opposite gender of her own species or seeing herself as having just as much in common with feral beasts as with men or seeing herself as a mediator halfway between man and beast or seeing herself as an ambassador to the world of men from the animal kingdom.

All, to me, are sickening realities to contemplate. All that is unknown is the numerical percentages of womankind’s members who mentally inhabit each of the four skewed outlooks.

What if?

What if, gentlemen, only three percent of existing women genuinely consider themselves to be human and ninety-seven percent consider themselves to be animals or part animals?

You think I’m being an alarmist.

Permit me to buttress my argument with the assertion that there is a world of difference between a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the masculine innovation of the 19th century – a nice civilized gesture, scarcely on par with a genuinely noble human enterprise (like ending slavery, as an example), but a nice gesture-and the Feminist “innovation” of the century just completed, animal “rights”.

Animal.

Rights.

Insufficient to screw-loose Feminist purposes is a Society dedicated to Preventing acts of Cruelty against Animals, an altogether sensible example of noblesse oblige from God’s highest creation on this earth to the lower life forms (feel the “ladies” bristle at that one). No, what is required by feminists is nothing short of Pan-DNA Rights and Freedoms.

Animal.

Rights.

Can the day be far distant when the local animal shelter will have to present a writ of habeas corpus, convene a “show cause” hearing and provide a court-appointed attorney (“Do you understand your Animal Rights as I have explained them to you?” “Woof.”) before they can be allowed to lock up a stray mutt found digging up lawns and scattering garbage?

Clearly, when womankind sets what passes for its “mind” upon “crowding the centre,” it seizes upon anything and everything: – homosexualists, babies, children, cats, dogs – to do so.

It seems to me that this is part and parcel of women being the silver medallists in the human race. If woman cannot achieve the masculine gold medal, then everyone and everything else as far as the eye can see must be recast as a silver medallist as well. Gold medal status must be made aberrational by every means of collectivist exclusion available to the unfairer sex. Society must be reshaped in such a way that silver medal status becomes the societal norm and gold medal status is made interchangeable with it, subservient to it and/or moved to the periphery of its own masculine context which defines it.

There is a certain hysteria (in its literal definition which so offends – and defines – feminists) which obtains here: a demented, histrionic quality of “if I can’t be equal to you, then I will cast myself into the gutter” if a woman can’t be a man, she will make herself interchangeable with homosexualists, with babies, with children, with cats and with dogs.

“A woman’s right to choose,” indeed. And, to me, a lunatic misuse of free will, undoubtedly as old as free will itself.

TANGENT V 

(All quotations in Tangent V are from David I. Garrow’s Bearing the Cross, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1986. Used without permission)

Before MIA became more widely synonymous with “missing in action,” it was, first, the acronym of the Montgomery Improvement Association, an organization which – on the basis of the May 17, 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka (which held that the segregationist doctrine of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional) – campaigned to desegregate the city buses of Montgomery, Alabama. The Association chose to do this by means of a boycott of the Montgomery City Lines buses by its Negro patrons, insightfully grasping the fact that the greatest leverage possible in effecting change in a capitalist society is the withholding of capital (the Negro population of Montgomery represented fully three quarters of all bus patrons in that city).

The MIA was composed of leaders from the Montgomery Negro community, many of whom were Baptist ministers. While the means (the boycott) and the end (desegregation) were clear, this was Alabama and the conquest of their own individual and collective fear was, clearly, their most pressing on-going concern. When word came that newspaper photographers would be attending an early MIA mass meeting, some of the ministers seemed reluctant to volunteer as speakers. E. D. Nixon, a past president of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) rebuked them angrily:

Somebody in this thing has got to get faith. I am just ashamed of you. You said that God has called you to lead the people and now you are afraid and gone to pieces because the man tells you that the newspaper men will be here and your pictures might come out in the newspaper. Somebody has got to get hurt in this thing and if you preachers are not the leaders then we have to pray that God will send us some more leaders.

The presidency of the fledgling MIA devolved upon a young minister named Martin Luther King whose call to the ministry, by his own admission, “was not a miraculous or supernatural something, on the contrary it was an inner urge calling me to serve humanity”. He had previously existed in “a state of scepticism . . . until I studied a course in [the] Bible in which I came to see that, behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape.” (italics mine)

Now of course, I was religious. I grew up in the church. I’m the son of a preacher . . . my grandfather was a preacher, my great grandfather was a preacher, my only brother is a preacher, my daddy’s brother is a preacher, so I didn’t have much choice I guess.

The first time that Martin Luther King addressed the Montgomery Improvement Association, he told them, “We must keep God in the forefront. Let us be Christian in all of our action.”

If it was true that conquering their own fear was the largest concern of the MIA membership, it was certainly no less of a pressing imperative for the Association’s young president. A critical moment arrived for him on the night of January 27, 1955 when his faith in himself and his ability to serve in his new capacity was at a low ebb. The phone rang, the latest in a series of anonymous callers to the home he shared with his wife and baby daughter “Nigger, we are tired of you and your mess now. And if you aren’t out of this town in three days, we’re going to blow your brains out and blow up your house.” As Martin Luther King recalled it later:

I got to the point that I couldn’t take it any longer. I was weak. Something said to me, you can’t call on Daddy now, he’s up in Atlanta a hundred and seventy-five miles away. You can’t even call on Mama now. You’ve got to call on the something in that person that your Daddy used to tell you about, that power that can make a way out of no way.

And I discovered, then, that religion had become something real to me and I had to know God for myself. And I bowed down over that cup of coffee. I will never forget it. I prayed a prayer and I prayed out loud that night. I said, “Lord, I’m down here trying to do what’s right. I think I’m right. I think the cause that we represent is right. But, Lord, I must confess that I’m weak now. I’m faltering. I’m losing my courage. And I can’t let the people see me like this, because if they see me weak and losing my courage, they will begin to get weak.”

And it seemed, at that moment, that I could hear an inner voice saying to me, “Martin Luther, stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand up for truth. And, lo, I will be with you, even unto the end of the world.” I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No, never alone. No, never alone. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone.

The King house was bombed several nights later, as King addressed the congregation at Ralph Abernathy’s First Baptist Church. In his own words, King “accepted the word of the bombing calmly. My religious experience a few nights before had given me the strength to face it.”

Addressing the crowd which had gathered outside his home, a crowd which (not surprisingly) threatened, at any moment, to turn into an unruly mob, King said:

I want you to love your enemies. Be good to them. Love them and let them know you love them . . . if I am stopped, this movement will not stop . . .  if anything happens to me, there will be others to take my place.

An ancient schism, as old as humanity itself, began to form within that “movement” hard on the heels of these extraordinary events. To me, it was a schism exemplified, on the one hand, by the comments of Jo Ann Robinson, president of Montgomery’s Women’s Political Council:

The amazing thing about our movement is that it is a protest of the people. It’s not a one man show. It is not the preachers’ show. It’s the people. The masses of this town, who are tired of being trampled on, are responsible. The leaders couldn’t stop it if they wanted to.

. . .  and on the other, by the words of Reverend Glenn E. Smiley, a white official of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and an expert on non-violence and the non-violent stratagems of Mahatma Gandhi. Writing to friends, Smiley described his first interview with Martin Luther King as “one of the most glorious, yet tragic interviews I have ever had.” He went on to say that

I believe that God has called Martin Luther King to lead a great movement here and in the South. But, why does God lay such a burden on one so young, so inexperienced, so good? King can be a Negro Gandhi, or he can be made into an unfortunate demagogue destined to swing from a lynch mob’s tree.

After addressing one of the early Montgomery Improvement Association mass meetings himself, Smiley also wrote

Religious fervor is high and they are trying to keep it spiritual. Not once was there an expression of hatred towards whites and the ovation I received when I talked of Gandhi, his campaign, and then of the Cross, was tremendous. They want to do the will of God, and they are sure this is the will of God.

Unfortunately for Reverend, or, rather, Doctor King, his people and his movement, Smiley’s influence was quickly overshadowed by that of Bayard Rustin, a known communist sympathizer, a suspected Communist Party member and a homosexualist who said of the MIA: “The movement [in Montgomery] is strong because it is religious as well as political. It has been built upon the most stable institution of the Southern Negro community – the Church.” Most of Bayard’s comments, not surprisingly, amount to damning with faint praise. To the faithful, the Church is a stable institution only insofar as it is sustained by the abiding faith, of its members, in God. That is, the Church as “institution” is not the same thing as the Elks Club, The Times of London, Westminster or the American Communist Party. To view it as such is to endeavour – tactically – to diminish its infinitely larger and infinitely more significant role in human affairs to a commonplace, mundane and-tactical-level. Not surprisingly this is always the approach secular interests take in describing the Church. Note Rustin’s description of the movement as “. . . religious as well as political,” as if the two forces were of comparable validity – as opposed to Smiley’s view of the early MIA as a Christian enterprise seeking to do the will of God in the area of racial injustice. “We must keep God in the forefront,” as Reverend King said.

One of the foremost potential problems that the movement faced – and which was not widely known until much later – was Dr. King’s womanizing, his manifold acts of adultery. It is almost inconceivable to me that someone could consider himself a good Christian and a minister of the Gospel and conduct himself in his personal life the way Dr. King did. Although the secular-humanist-socialists he allowed into the SCLC could remark with equanimity (as one staff member did) “I watched women making passes at Martin Luther King. I could not believe what I was seeing in white Westchester [County, an affluent New York satellite community] women . . . They would walk up to him and they would sort of lick their lips and hint and [hand him] notes . . . After I saw that thing that evening I didn’t blame him,” his behaviour was, obviously blameworthy. It seems to me that the sort of precautions taken by the evangelist Billy Graham of never communicating with women, one-on-one, unless there was a staff member present – “present” as in being self-evidently privy to any conversation however quietly whispered and intercepting any communication – should have been taken in Dr. King’s case. This is not foolproof of course. As any experience with women will tell you a) a slut is a slut is a slut and b) there is no slut quite as bad as a rich, white slut. But, clearly, for a minister of the gospel message of Jesus Christ measures should have been taken.

Rev. Ralph Abernathy was assaulted in his church office one night and badly injured by a man who claimed that Abernathy had had an intimate relationship with the man’s wife. This prompted Los Angeles pastor J. Raymond Henderson to caution King that he must avoid “even the appearance of evil. One of the most damning influences is that of women. They themselves too often delight in the satisfaction they get out of affairs with men of unusual prominence. Enemies are not above using them to a man’s detriment. White women can be lures. You must exercise more than care. You must be vigilant, indeed.”

Presumably, Rev. Henderson’s warning had some effect – at least in the short term – to judge by the following event:

In mid-September King traveled to New York to speak at several churches to stimulate interest in the Youth March. That same week, his book [Stride Toward Freedom] was published and King made a number of appearances to help promote it. One of those was a Saturday autographing session at Blumstein’s department store in Harlem. King, surrounded by friends and admirers as he sat on a chair in the book department, was suddenly approached by a middle-aged black woman who asked, “Is this Martin Luther King?” King looked up and replied, “Yes it is.” Quickly, the woman pulled a sharp seven-inch Japanese letter opener from her handbag and slammed it into King’s upper left chest. The shocked onlookers grabbed the woman, and the store security officer handcuffed her. King was fully conscious and remained calmly seated in the chair until an ambulance arrived. With the weapon protruding from his chest, King was driven to nearby Harlem Hospital. As a team of doctors prepared for surgery, police officials brought the assailant, Mrs. Izola Ware Curry, to the hospital for King to make a positive identification. A loaded pistol had been found in her purse, and her incoherent comments indicated severe mental illness. After King identified her she was taken away to a mental hospital . . . King would have a scar, in the shape of a cross, right over his heart, but otherwise would suffer no lingering ill effects.

I’m sure that, from the vantage point of my largely feminist readers, I attach too much significance to the fact that – because he was immobilized by this vicious assault – the Youth March marked the first time that his wife, Coretta, “stood in” for him and that it was Coretta King and Ella Baker who set up a temporary movement office inside Harlem Hospital during Dr. King’s recovery.

It was shortly after this that Reverend King was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to own any property. I don’t need any property. I don’t need a house. A man who devotes himself to a cause, who dedicates himself to a cause doesn’t need a family.”

Very unusual for a husband to even allow himself to think, let alone say out loud.

Of course (no great surprise) he got a house. And then a bigger house. Stanley Levison was quoted as saying:

The house troubled him greatly. When he moved from a very small house to one that was large enough to give the growing family some room, he was troubled by it and would ask all of his close friends when they came to the house whether they didn’t think it was too big and it wasn’t right for him to have. And though everyone tried to tell him that this big house wasn’t as big as he thought it was – it was a very modest little house – to him it loomed as large as a mansion and he searched his own mind for ways of making it smaller.

Meanwhile, back at Ella Baker:

Ella Baker, along with Rustin and Stanley Levison, constituted the third in a trinity of socialist-secular-humanist influences which lobbied intensively for Reverend King to confine himself to the role of Dr. King. Again, unfortunately for Reverend King, his people and his movement, she soon attained the position of associate director of the newly founded outgrowth of the MIA, the SCLC (The Southern Christian Leadership Conference). Originally a socialist-centred Southern Leadership Conference on Transportation (Rustin’s tactical “logic of the next step” move to expand the Montgomery bus boycott into a pan-Southern action) it was only through the insistence of Reverend King that the word “Christian” was incorporated into the title. Rustin had warned that such a move would discourage the non-religious from participating. Again, unfortunately for Reverend King, his people and his movement, that proved not to be the case.

When the SCLC foundered in a period of inactivity, a group of students, on its own initiative, began “sit-ins” at segregated lunch counters in North Carolina and soon thereafter organized themselves into the SNCC (The Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) of which Ella Baker appointed herself a kind of socialist-secular-humanist den mother while still attached to the SCLC executive. She warned the students that the SCLC would attempt to take over their movement and insisted, in good secular-humanist-socialist-proto-feminist fashion, that the students be left to function without any adult supervision (you know, that “out of the mouths of babes” thing).

While undermining the SCLC in the minds of the SNCC students, Ella Baker continued to “serve” in her role as acting executive director (I would assume that Rustin, Levison and Coretta had pressured Martin Luther King to advance Ella Baker to such lofty heights in what was now a Christian organization only in the most ostensible sense), a position which she would ultimately resign:

Baker’s departure, however left a legacy of strained feelings [emphasis mine] in its wake. She had never held King or Abernathy in high regard and, once she had formally left the organization, she made no secret of her attitude. Baker had found them unwilling to discuss substantive issues with her as an equal [emphasis mine] and unreceptive to any critical comments she might offer. To James Lawson [an SCLC staff member], the root of the problem was simple: “Martin had real problems with having a woman in a high position.” Baker also did not support a “leader-centred” approach to organizing a movement and felt no special awe for King. “I was not a person to be enamoured of anyone,” she noted. The ministers of the SCLC, on the other hand, thought Baker was haughty and aloof with what they felt was a disdain for anyone who was a black male preacher. The resulting bitterness would not mellow with time.

In fairness to Baker, she did warn King early in her participation with the movement that “we are losing the initiative in the Civil Rights struggle in the south, mainly because of the absence of a dynamic philosophy or spiritual force” [italics mine]. Had King “stayed the course” – keeping God at the forefront of the movement through maintaining exclusively Christian leadership by Christian leaders (ministers and pastors) in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (I mean, duh) – the outcome, I suspect, would have been very different. Alas, such was not to be the case.

It amazes me that, even with the religious experience in his kitchen in 1957, so much of Martin Luther King’s efforts remained wholly and completely secular, humanist and socialist in nature. In his meetings with Vice-President Richard Nixon and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, his tone is always that of a Labour negotiator, a quasi-socialist, with nary a word said by him about God, nary an effort made to communicate as a minister of the Gospel to wayward Christians (Kennedy and Johnson being rather more wayward as Christians go, one would guess, than were Nixon and Eisenhower). Had Nixon, as an example, been addressed as a Quaker: “Mr. Vice President, how can you as a white Christian gentleman deny to your black Christian brothers the rights and freedoms which you enjoy?” it seems to me that it would have left a good deal less “wiggle” room. “Let my people go.” Reverend King as Aaron, addressing Richard Nixon as Pharaoh. There were any number of approaches that made more sense when standing on the moral high ground (as Martin Luther King surely was) than to function as a secular-humanist-quasi-socialist mouthpiece for a run-of-the-mill Marxist like Bayard Rustin. Certainly, Martin Luther King had demonstrated, time and again, his oratorical skill in the striking – just so – of the “right note,” le mot juste – and nowhere more exaltedly than in his “I have a dream” speech delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in the summer of 1963.

I have a dream that, one day, every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be mode straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together . . .

It is hard to imagine any occasion in human history when the words of the fourth and fifth verses of Isaiah’s monumental and awe-inspiring 40th chapter had so resonated with the souls and minds of so many people in one place and in one time than on that glorious sunlit August afternoon.

Let freedom ring . . .  When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God’s children – black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics – will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

Reportedly, Coretta King was furious in the aftermath of The Speech that she was not allowed to accompany King to his meeting with President Kennedy. I suspect that she had focussed her attentions upon an earlier reference in The Speech to “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers” and that her female nature – typically and misguidedly – believed this reference to black and white children had some analogous application to black men and black women, white men and white women. That is, if the Reverend Martin Luther King belonged in the Oval Office that afternoon, so did his housewife).

Anyway, it did amaze me that a man like Martin Luther King – who was capable of writing The Speech and who had been assured that Jesus would never leave him alone in his pursuit of righteousness, of truth and of justice for his people – would think that a socialist lightweight like Bayard Rustin had anything to teach him about what to say and how to say it in the Oval Office.

But, this is my last word on gender, so back to the “ladies”.

The checkers-playing tacticianettes do not, ordinarily, surrender a high-profile position such as Ella Baker enjoyed in the SCLC without bringing in a replacement tacticianette. Such seems to have been the case and the SCLC board soon welcomed to its ranks Marian Logan, a New York fundraiser (friend to the lip-licking? ally of the note-passing?), as Ella Baker turned her attentions, more or less full-time to the radical, unsupervised and wholly secular SNCC.

Yes, sorry, back to the “ladies”. Quite right.]

What interested me about Marian Logan was that she circulated a memo to the other members of the SCLC Board in advance of the Poor People’s March on Washington (which Martin Luther King whole-heartedly favoured, a position in which he was virtually alone of the SCLC executive):

“I doubt very seriously,” Logan wrote, that the Washington actions would have any positive effect on Congress. “If anything, the demonstrations may well harden congressional resistance and create an atmosphere conducive not only to the victory of reactionary candidates in the coming elections, but also to the defeat of those candidates who are, or would be, friendly to the social and economic objectives of our struggle.” Logan was also concerned that King and SCLC would not “be able to preserve the non-violent image and integrity of our organization” once the protests got under way. Given the “explosive potential of the situation,” serious violence would be inevitable. “You say, Martin, that you ‘will use disruptive tactics only as a last resort’ . . . but you understand, of course,” Logan asserted, “that in view of the likely police response to these disruptive tactics, you are in effect saying that you are prepared to court violence as a last resort.” Logan was also “troubled and unhappy [emphasis mine] at how inadequately” the planning had been handled so far “It does not appear to me, or to anyone with whom I have talked, that an adequate job has been done.” And “there is the question of objectives. Have they been clarified? Have you worked out what you will accept, short of your total objectives . . . ?”

In response to Logan‘s admonitions, King phoned her almost daily for more than a week in an unsuccessfull effort to persuade her to withdraw the complaints, which she had sent to the entire SCLC board. Andrew Young joined in the attempt, writing Logan and her husband, Arthur, that “we are too far gone to turn around” on the campaign. “This is very much a faith venture . . . ” [emphasis mine)

King’s reaction seems, to me, disproportionate. And yet he persisted, seeming to believe that there was some greater level of importance to the memo than revealed on the surface, as if . . . as if the actual conflict between himself and Marian Logan was taking place on some loftier plane of existence, some more crucial battlefield than a difference of opinion between an organization’s president and one of its board members.

Sometime later

King returned to New York City and went to the home of Marian and Arthur Logan, where he argued with Marian into the early-morning hours about the memo she had distributed to SCLC’s board. King was depressed and exhausted, and downed drink after drink as he pressed her to withdraw her objections to the Washington protests. The Logans had spent many similar evenings with King when he had wanted to talk and drink until dawn, seemingly unable to find any rest in sleep, but this night was different and worse. King was unwilling to accept Logan‘s position and talk about something else. His mood changed repeatedly as the hours passed, from tension to calm, and then back to barely restrained anger and throughout it all he betrayed unusual anxiety with one hand tightly holding his frequently refilled glass and the other clenched into a fist with his thumb ceaselessly rubbing against the other fingers. It seemed that King was “losing hold,” Marian Logan recalled.

I suspect that that is what happened. In some very real sense, that night King did “lose hold” of the Civil Rights movement and it passed from his hands into those of Marian Logan and her secular-humanist confreres, the checkers-playing tacticianettes, the proto-feminists-in-waiting.

Over the next few days, King continued to phone Marian Logan on almost a daily basis. Finally, on a rain-ravaged night in Memphis he delivered a speech:

I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But, it really doesn’t matter with me now because I’ve been to the mountaintop.

And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And he’s allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I’ve looked over and I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But, I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And so, I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

“Sweat streaming from his brow, and his eyes watering heavily, King moved to his seat. Some thought him so overcome by emotion that he was crying . . . ”

Early the next evening, Martin Luther King was shot to death on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel.

Of course, Marian Logan’s memo could have been just that: a memo. Perhaps it was nothing more . . . real . . . than that. Perhaps it was – as it appeared on the surface – that Marian Logan merely had some . . . hard questions . . . for Dr. or Reverend Martin Luther King. Hard questions that he had been evading since the early days of the Montgomery Improvement Association. Hard questions: not the least of which was “how non-violent can a movement be that knowingly courts violence as a means (television coverage) to an end (social change)?”

Or perhaps her hard questions were, in some context, larger still, so large that they caused the Civil Rights movement to slip from the hands of Martin Luther King, minister of the gospel message of Jesus Christ, a man chosen by God (can any believer, in retrospect, believe otherwise?) to bring equality and justice to the men of his race, to “speed up the day when all of God’s children – black men and white men” (italics mine) might attain to the promise housed within the preamble to the United States Constitution that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . ” (italics mine)

. . . and through her memo, her hard questions, Marian Logan was the instrument which caused the Civil Rights movement to pass from Martin Luther King’s hands – at the very threshold of destiny, on the very cusp of fulfillment, at the very dawning of that too-long-delayed day – first enunciated as a promise in the Constitution, clarified, subsequently, by Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and, finally, made inevitable by the enshrining of the 13th Amendment abolishing, in 1870, slavery’s last outpost on this continent . . .

. . . so that 1970 might evermore have been associated as both a centenary and a fulfillment of the black man finding his long-promised and too-long-delayed “place in the sun” of full equality with his white brothers: “Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty we are free at last” . . . but instead . . .

Instead!

1970 would come to be synonymous with the onset of feminism, wherein the black man found his Civil Rights usurped by those who hold, instead, these poisonous, fairy-tale “truths” to be self-evident: that black men are interchangeable with black women and white women, that black men are interchangeable with homosexualists; that black men are interchangeable with children and with infants, that black men are interchangeable with babies, that black men are interchangeable with cats and that black men are interchangeable with dogs.

Because of a) my choice to not reprint “Tangent” in the Form & Void trade paperback (although it is relevant – so far as I’m concerned – to the “Recondite magazine” portion of Ham and Mary Ernestway’s story), b) the fact that I have no plans in the foreseeable future to publish any collection of my essays and c) mindful of the fact that issue 186 (despite being universally deplored by male and female feminists) is one of the few Cerebus back issues to sell out virtually overnight:

I hereby waive all trademark and copyright considerations to the essay and authorize any and all individuals to reproduce the essay in any form, print, electronic or otherwise provided that that reproduction is of the complete work and not excerpts from it (which are authorized for journalistic purposes or as raw materials in another creative or journalistic work).

Dave Sim
Kitchener, Ontario
March 16, 2001

The people saying the Kanye “Heil Hitler” song is bad because he’s a nigger are CIA. Firstly, the Lion King musical is good. That’s first. Second, saying “Hitler would kill Kanye” is retarded, and plays into stupid Jewish blood libels about Hitler. Hitler didn’t kill anyone and he wouldn’t kill Kanye. I’m not sure he would play this song at one of his rallies, but he might. As a curiosity, I think he might play it. “And now, my German brothers, we turn to my #1 fan in America, who happens to be a negro gentleman.”

Regardless, I can tell you for a fact: Hitler would not be opposed to this emerging cultural obsession with him. If it had happened in the 1930s, obviously he would have thought it was weird, but if you brought him back to life and explained to him what is happening now, he would definitely smile.

I’m seeing all these shill accounts saying “oh you support a nigger because he heils Hitler?” and it’s like, how is that even a question? Yes, obviously, I support that. This is the biggest news story, and the biggest song on Spotify.

There are trillions of these posts.

All 100% kikes.

I see those posts and I see this:

Saying “heil Hitler” is always good and people who claim black people are fundamentally evil in some way are confused or lying. Black people are primitive, low IQ relics of the prehistoric past. Of course if you unleash them, it’s going to cause problems. Who unleashed them? They didn’t unleash themselves, I can tell you that.

Blacks used to be very fine people and not a problem.

See if you can find photos of a Jew doing something nice. You can’t, because no Jew ever did anything nice, so if you are acting like blacks are somehow as important of an issue as the Jews, or more important, you are clearly yourself Jewish.

Just relax.

White nationalism is a cancer run by the feds and driven by mentally ill people who are deranged. I was involved in this movement, I can tell you. I would say 3% of 2017 white nationalists were not feds or mentally ill, and those people are all gone. No one talking about white nationalism is a serious person in the current year. It’s officially not happening. Sorry.

I hope that some day white people will have their own countries, but that is a really long way off, and none of the people calling themselves “white nationalist” are going to make that happen. Right now, the number one thing that matters is just breaking down this culture the Jews created where they can’t be questioned. I have criticized Kanye not for being black (he can’t really help that), but for making all of this look ridiculous. Which I think is mostly true. But making “Nigger, Heil Hitler” the number one song is awesome and it is so obviously awesome that it is equally obvious that anyone saying something different is a kike shill.

“Let me tell you why I agree with the ADL on this one.”

Shut the fuck up.

I won’t stand for it.

This one song is going to erase trillions of dollars’ worth of “look at this pile of shoes tho” Jewish propaganda simply by being ridiculous. You cannot take Schindler’s List seriously after having listened to this song. It’s impossible.

The quality of the song is whatever. The whole autotune thing is, you know, I don’t really like the sound too much. But the hook is clean and it gets stuck in your head and people will be blasting this. It’s the fun summer hit.

Nigger, Heil Hitler.

-Team Anglin

Yesterday, I posted a statement from “Team Anglin” on Dave Portnoy. This was a parody of the actual, real statement that Dave Portnoy posted on his Twitter account explaining why he is having a public meltdown over people making a joke that hurt his feelings.

For immediate release pic.twitter.com/TLghAIVJpE

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) May 7, 2025

Despite being labeled “Team Portnoy” to give the impression it was written by some kind of PR team, there is no way anyone other than him wrote that statement. No professional would write like that, nor would any professional think that was good damage control.

The incident began when someone bought a $500 bottle at one of Portnoy’s bars, and was able to post a sign in the bar and wrote “Fuck the Jews.” Portnoy had a complete psychotic meltdown, posting a video claiming he was “literally shaking.” He said he would destroy the lives of everyone involved and also threatened their families.

Even people who don’t really understand the Jewish thing were very confused by this behavior, as Portnoy has framed himself as being against “cancel culture,” and yet cancel culture is exactly what he is doing. The statement above was apparently intended as a response to his fans (he apparently has fans) who are not really impressed with him having an emotional breakdown and wanting to destroy people over a joke that hurt his feelings. He’s continued to dig the hole, posting about the issue every few hours on Twitter.

Mo Kahn is an anti semitic coward and liar. End of story. pic.twitter.com/G0UWNi75Gd

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) May 7, 2025

This is much more egregious than Black Lives Matter type cancel culture, frankly. At least George Floyd actually died. We now know that his murder was a hoax, but the claim that someone was murdered by the cops is a lot different than a joke.

The Jews are now moving to destroy the lives of anyone who even witnessed the sign at the bar.

Cancel Culture has moved on from cancelling the customers that jokingly brought an “eff the jews” sign to Dave Portnoy’s bar after they lost their jobs and got kicked out of college

They are now trying to name and shame ANY customer that laid eyes on the sign in the bar that… pic.twitter.com/DcDvZYxhYo

— Spinachbrah (@basedspinach) May 6, 2025

What if you owned a bar and someone paid you $500 to post a “Fuck White People” sign? Personally, I would not only not have an emotional meltdown, but laugh about making $500 on it.

Jewish behavior is so extreme. They are completely emotionally unhinged and they are vicious and vindictive. And if anyone ever criticizes them, they start talking about the Holocaust, which is exactly what Portnoy is doing. But we’ve all seen them slaughter tens of thousands of innocent children in Gaza and then claim it’s “self-defense.” Who can see that and then believe they were telling the truth about Hitler and the supposed Holocaust?

The Jews have done marketing campaigns saying they have to kill all those kids because they’re homophobic. These are alongside the marketing campaigns they do saying Jesus wants them to kill the kids. And we’re just supposed to trust them about their Holocaust claims, for which they’ve never presented any evidence? Which they’ve used to justify every evil imaginable, while claiming that they cannot ever be criticized, that you’re not even allowed to joke around with them? They’ve also made trillions of dollars off of these Holocaust claims.

Why would anyone believe that bullshit? And even if you did believe it, how could you see these behaviors of the Jews and not think “well, I can certainly see why people would want to round them up and gas them like insects”?

Portnoy has sold himself as edgy and right-wing. He was really against cancel culture when a bunch of girls he was having sex with told the media he choked them and spit in their mouths. He even went around in anti-cancel culture shirts.

He’d long downplayed his Judaism, eating pork and generally pretending as though he was assimilated. But like many or basically all Jews, the backlash in recent years against the genocide in Gaza has caused him to melt down. A few months ago, he went to UFC in a yarmulke and flew an Israeli flag against a UFC fighter who said something that hurt his precious feelings.

That was a precursor to this complete crash-out over the “fuck the Jews” joke sign at his bar.

Ben Cohen of the Ben and Jerry’s ice cream brand went on Tucker Carlson this week and said “I love Jesus Christ.”

Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s goes on Tucker Carlson and says, ‘I love Jesus Christ’ – Jewish Telegraphic Agency https://t.co/PxDD5dTZ1v

— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) May 7, 2025

I don’t know if Cohen is a repentant Jew or a good person or anything else, but I know that no Jew who doesn’t say “I love Jesus Christ” and completely deny their identity as a Jew is going to end up acting like any other Jew. Portnoy’s assimilation was fake. He was always the same whiny kike with an emotional hair-trigger ready to go nuclear on any “goy” who thinks he has a right to question Jews.

We do not need these people in our country, and in fact, we cannot survive with them in our country. Portnoy’s breakdown is funny, but imagine that people with this same attitude control virtually all of the levers of power in the United States. There need to be laws against being Jewish and these Jews need to be deported to Israel, and then the US government needs to fund Hamas.

Megyn [sic] Kelly is defending Portnoy.

.@megynkelly: “You don’t have to be a member of the woke left to rush to victimhood. The fact that this guy at exactly the right age… is leaning into making himself the victim in all of this instead of taking personal responsibility…”

Megyn calls out student in Portnoy battle… pic.twitter.com/CHl6iHrWaT

— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) May 7, 2025

She’s saying that the real cancel culture is being against Portnoy canceling people? I don’t even understand those statements at all, but seriously, that bitch can choke for defending this rat. No one is defending him and she goes out there and does it because he’s rich and I guess she thinks she’s going to get something out of it.

Self-hating Irish need to be called out alongside the kikes.

For Immediate Release:

This past weekend on his Twitter account, Jewish gambling magnate Dave Portnoy posted a video announcing a campaign to destroy the lives of several people who he accused of making a joke that hurt his feelings.

The video, posted by Dave Portnoy, gained traction across social media and various news outlets. When Andrew Anglin saw the video (which was posted by Dave Portnoy) he was understandably quite angry. For those unaware, “Daily Stormer” is a company owned by Anglin. The video was posted on Twitter. And Anglin is not Jewish. So it’s safe to say this story hits a bit close to home for him.

The idiot Portnoy, who brought out an Israeli flag at a UFC event, promptly posted several other videos and tweets making various claims. (One was inconveniently recorded while he was preparing for the MET Gala. We hope he was able to enjoy the rest of the event.) But as for the outrageous threats to destroy the lives of people who hurt his feelings by getting them fired and kicked out of university and ruining their families, the Daily Stormer CEO opted for a different route. He emailed Dave Portnoy (the guy who posted the video). Portnoy cried his eyes out but ultimately said Jews are above criticism and cannot do anything wrong. So Anglin, always known to be the bigger man and never one to hold grudges, opted to use this as a learning experience for the old Jew. He generously offered to give him a trip to Palestine (to the concentration camp in Gaza) so that he could reflect on his actions and hopefully come out as a better man.

But in the days that have passed, things have changed. First, some wackadoo Jew on Twitter doxed the waitress who was allegedly in on the supposedly hurtful joke and got her fired from her dance studio. (Anglin, as a reminder, is not Jewish). And then Dave Portnoy (the poster of the video) tried to distance himself from all responsibility, and ran to Jewish doxing groups (who must be lovely people), and is now trying to play the victim and gain sympathy for himself through a statement where he (poorly) tried to type a PR statement which was likely not made by ChatGPT. He also made a quick pit stop on what appeared to be a Zionist extremist Twitter account (where the poster also hates Muslims?).

So to quickly recap. Dave Portnoy posts a video threatening to destroy the lives of people who hurt his feelings by doxing them and their families and canceling them. Anglin, the non-Jewish owner of Daily Stormer, sees the video. He is a bit upset. He emails Portnoy, who takes responsibility. Anglin offers Portnoy the chance to make things right by educating himself on the history of Judaism across the world. Portnoy doesn’t respond. But then days later, he is still claiming he’s a victim and demanding everyone care about his hurt feelings. While Dave’s doxing and cancelation campaign may win him some made up awards nobody cares about at the ADL or in Israel, this unfortunately is the real world. A world where Dave Portnoy is a Jewish parasite piece of shit who deserves an awful life. A world where Jews have no place. A world where Anglin is a great man.

-Team Anglin

It turns out, it’s not just gay and retard you’re allowed to say now. You’re also allowed to say nigger.

Freaking based.

I’ve seen literally no one launching any kind of organized attack on people defending Shiloh Hendrix, the woman filmed calling a niglet a nigger and then calling all the rest of the niggers niggers.

She’s got nearly a million dollars on her crowdfunding page and everyone is just saying that anyone complaining is a woke baby from the cancel culture.

This is Shiloh Hendrix – Protect Her

Non Whites are making out she’s murdered someone.

All she did was protect her child; like any mother would!

Good to see the community coming together and raising funds so she can get her family to safety

Cry harder Africans pic.twitter.com/3hhUoFuF3w

— James Goddard (@JamesPGoddard90) May 2, 2025

Even that pathetic slob and Jewish shill McInnes is saying the thing.

“The N word is dead. Doxxing is dead. They’re not offended either, they’re just melting down because one more tool in the toolbox of keeping Whites on the mental plantation is now gone.”

Huge W from Gavin McInnes @censoreddottv pic.twitter.com/SnjAXUv53L

— Not Sure Gnoticer (@ViceLitty) May 6, 2025

I think even Matt Walsh is saying it, though I didn’t watch the clip.

Everyone is just saying the obvious: black people have been attacking whites, with the support of the media, for many years now. They’ve been killing us and threatening to kill all of us. Then they want to complain about mean words.

Blacks are donating hundreds of thousands to a black who murdered a white, so they can’t go around saying it’s evil to say a mean word to them. It’s not reasonable and no one is buying it anymore.

You want to know why we support Shiloh Hendrix? This is why pic.twitter.com/Ic8PgdLVqe

— Toad (@TowerGangToad) May 3, 2025

Amidst this, Piers Morgan brought on a notable trad thot to create one of the best viral clips so far this year.

‘Horrifying for most people to have to watch.’

Piers Morgan is disgusted as Lilly Gaddis says she uses the N word towards black people and admits to being an ‘unashamed racist’.

Watch more

https://t.co/t69wYLn381@piersmorgan | @thelillygaddis pic.twitter.com/FsLWyaiFjl

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) May 6, 2025

Two clips, actually.

“Well go on then, say it!”

Piers Morgan dares Lilly Gaddis to say ‘the N word’, but then Marc Lamont Hill chimps out.

Incredible television. pic.twitter.com/6dGNf1rqUN

— iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) May 6, 2025

Piers is in total control of the internet and this is what he’s delivering.

Obviously, this is the biggest story on the internet right now and everyone is very excited that the boot is finally coming off of the neck of whites and we are no longer forced to go along with the idea that we are oppressing the blacks.

But you know who is less oppressed than the blacks? Jews. Particularly billionaire Jews like Dave Portnoy are less oppressed than the blacks. At least black people are legitimately poor. It’s ridiculous to claim that whites are responsible for black behavior, but blacks are at least poor and definitely do not control the US government or really anything at all. Blacks literally do not even control the rap music industry. So it’s at least conceivable that people could feel bad for them or think it is mean to hurt their feelings. I think it’s much harder to think that after watching them riot and go on murder sprees and then say that all of their decisions are white people’s fault, but hey, they are legitimately pathetic.

If you can’t get white people to go along with the idea that blacks are oppressed and should be protected from hurt feelings, how is it possible that Dave Portnoy, the billionaire head of Barstool Sports, thinks people are going to go along with him claiming he’s being oppressed by a 25-year-old waitress?

Watch this clip.

And they wonder why people don’t like them pic.twitter.com/yvHOTrnfrr

— Lilly (@thelillygaddis) May 4, 2025

That is the billionaire parasite kike saying he’s going to destroy the lives of people who hurt his feelings with mean words. As a joke.

The Jews are mobbing the poor waitress.

Barstools “F*ck the Jews” sign UPDATE: waitress Kelli Thompson has been also terminated from her dance job by the studio owner per @FoxNews. pic.twitter.com/PD2Tn42tmM

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) May 5, 2025

Here’s the thing though. And I already said it. But let me say it again. Black people are no longer sympathetic, because they are simply too badly behaved, it’s becoming or has already become impossible to bully people into caring about their hurt feelings. But they are actually poor and powerless. Jews are the single richest and most powerful group in the world, the most powerful group that has ever existed, and they totally control the US government and literally every institution of power in the country. And frankly, their behavior is a lot worse than the behavior of the blacks. Blacks are absurdly violent, like something out of slapstick comedy, but never have they ever done anything like what the Jews are doing in Gaza. Further, blacks never tried to turn children into trannies, owned the porn industry, used usury to enslave entire nations, or killed Jesus Christ. Jews are six million times more powerful than blacks and their behavior is six million times worse, so I’m telling you that if blacks cannot get people to go along with destroying people for hurting their feelings, the Jews are not going to be able to do this either.

It is so wonderful that at the exact same time the entire right-wing is organizing to defend the right of whites to call black people niggers to their face, and the left is failing to give any kind of explanation as to why whites shouldn’t be allowed to do this, Dave Portnoy decides to make a huge spectacle about how people are oppressing him by hurting his feelings with mean words.

Frankly, I don’t really care very much about black people. Honestly, I probably have a lot more sympathy for them than the average American at this point. Of course I do think they are niggers and people should call them that when it is appropriate, but it’s not really something that matters very much to me, as I’ve studied the history of the blacks in America and know that under slavery and Jim Crow, blacks were fine and we actually had some good relations with them.

We never had a good relationship with the Jews. They’ve been hounding us for 2,000 years, drinking our blood.

What matters to me is the Jews, which is why my advice right now would be for everyone to focus on Portnoy destroying this waitress. Keep talking about Shiloh, keep saying nigger and saying everyone should be allowed to say nigger and if blacks don’t want to be called niggers they should stop being niggers, but frankly, I view that as a means to an end, because the real threat to America and to the world are the Jews, and Portnoy doing a “my hurt feelings” life-ruining of some poor waitress is really where the target should be.

Probably, the waitress is a liberal that supports Palestine. I don’t know that, but that’s probably what it is. Maybe not, who knows. But I do not care at all either way. She needs a crowd fund and a million dollars in support money. Someone tell her to put it up. Maybe she won’t break Shiloh’s record, but she’ll make hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Cancel culture” is the meme and everyone hates this completely and now we’re saying nigger again. But Portnoy is so much worse than the blacks. That video of him screaming and whining about his hurt feelings is the single most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my life.

I said most of the news doesn’t matter and that is true. All of this stuff about Trump is totally meaningless. I don’t think Pakistan is going to nuke India, though the videos of jets being shot down are cool. GTA VI is not going to be good, I’m sorry to have to tell you that. If Puffy was running an Illuminati pedophile cult and did rape poor Justin, none of that is not going to come out in the trial. This stuff doesn’t matter.

But saying nigger matters and what matters a lot more is stopping these kikes. Somebody has to do it.

The walls are already closing in on these rats.

I can almost hear the hounds.

The three biggest right-wing influencers in this current period are Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens. In that order. They are three very different people, and it’s a strange trio. In general, most right-wing or at least far-right type people tend to think that anything that is popular and allowed by the media is some kind of psyop. Having thought about it a lot, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is too simple of an explanation, and it isn’t really effective to create completely astroturfed political commentators on the right-wing. There are some such people, but it’s the Daily Wire, where it’s just obvious that it’s astroturf, and only actually appeals to old people and low IQ morons and therefore has a limited impact.

Further, there are things that Joe, Tucker, and Candace all do or have done that simply would not be part of an astroturf movement. Most notably, all three of them are against Israel and will openly criticize the Trump administration’s goofy allegiance to the Jew state. However, it makes sense that because you are going to have people against Israel, you would want to have controlled type figures leading that, but I think what you have with these three is people who are basically genuine but being manipulated, and who are also subjected to a chilling effect where they know there is a limit on how far they can go.

One seriously complicating factor here is that all three are obscenely wealthy, their wealth comes from their media operations, and their media operations are dependent on navigating the invisible lines that you’re not allowed to cross without being completely destroyed in the way that Andrew Anglin and the Daily Stormer were completely destroyed. There were no consequences for completely banning me from all social media, taking my website, banning me from using banks for the rest of my life, and so on. It just happened, 8 years ago, and there was no appeals process, no department to complain to. Doing what was done to me to one of these big three personalities might seem too extreme to actually happen, but certainly YouTube and Twitter bans would not really surprise anyone.

The current status of the censorship regime is convoluted and confounding. Certainly, Big Tech has backed off of a lot of the censorship as regards goofy nonsense like criticizing trannies, immigrants, or the blacks, but at the same time, the Trump administration is somehow making laws against “antisemitism,” using a definition that claims that any criticism of Israel is hate speech. The Biden administration’s use of back channels with the tech industry to enforce censorship was extreme and illegal, but what the Trump administration is doing is more extreme and illegal. At the same time they are passing these laws, however, there is more public criticism of Israel and Jews than ever before. Legal residents can be deported for criticizing Israel and any organization or individual that criticizes Israel and Jews, or refuses to silence such criticism, is banned from receiving government contracts and federal funding. There is no explanation as to how a legal resident of the US has fewer constitutional rights than an American citizen, so it’s not clear why, if it is illegal for a person with a green card to criticize Israel, it would be legal for an American citizen to do so. No criminal prosecution has been taken against American citizens for antisemitism as of yet, but this is certainly the aim of many in the Trump administration.

It’s all just almost hard to wrap your head around. The message of the Trump campaign was to end woke censorship, and now we have all of the exact same arguments about hate speech and the need for safe spaces being used by this administration, and it is all that much weirder because at the same time, virtually none of Trump’s supporters support these actions.

It is not as if there is some groundswell of support saying “well, they censored us talking about trannies so now we’re going to censor them for talking about Jews.” There is a “turnabout is fair play” thing going on in various other sectors, such as Trump’s desire to use the justice system to harass his enemies in the way they did it to him (which is fair enough, frankly). But if this administration’s agenda to censor antisemitism plays out and follows through with its current trajectory, it is going to be right-wingers getting punished the hardest, including those who were (and really still are) some of the biggest voices supporting Trump.

Certainly the campus protests against Israel were left-wing. But there are no left-wingers critical of Israel that are anywhere near the size of Joe, Tucker, or Candace. The left doesn’t really have much of an alternative media, and CNN is in lockstep with Fox News in terms of total support for Israel and the Jews. I guess that Hasan Piker is “left wing alternative media,” but while he theoretically supports Palestine, he is out there claiming Candace is an antisemite and saying he wants to work with Ethan Klein to fight against antisemitism and protect the Jews.

The people pushing all of this antisemitism censorship, the most prominent government official being Marco Rubio, with the media voices being mostly associated with the Daily Wire, are making the claim it is about left-wingers. When they are forced to acknowledge that most of the people criticizing Israel and Jews are actually on the right, they start talking about the “woke right,” saying that antisemitism is the definition of wokeness, and apparently suggesting that the likes of Joe, Tucker, and Candace are actually woke leftists.

It’s all a tangled mess.

The left and right definitions don’t really mean anything anymore. That’s something that’s been noted for a while, but has never been more clear that it is now, where it’s not really apparent what the MAGA movement is about at this point. Steve Bannon, who is a psycho Israel supporter despite being an Irish Catholic, talks like a communist. I don’t personally have strong feelings on economic or “class” issues in general as it just isn’t something I care about, but when I hear this guy going on about the “working people” it makes me a bit uncomfortable. It makes me less uncomfortable than hearing Trump’s tech bro supporters talk about importing infinity Indians to do AI to stop the Chinese so we can colonize Mars. It also makes me less uncomfortable than Ben Shapiro saying Trump is the president for Israel with the strength to take on Iran.

During Tucker’s very stupid interview with Matt Walsh, Tucker asked him what united people behind Trump, and to his credit, he paused to think about it and sort of said he didn’t really know before saying people were opposed to wokeness and mass immigration. But everyone is opposed to those things. Like literally everyone now. Not literally everyone, but it is more than the “80-20” people keep talking about. There is no way that 20% of people support child trannies and open borders at this point. Maybe they did a few years ago when it was new and the pressure was on and people hadn’t seen the effects and hadn’t really even had time to process what it meant, but now there is no way it’s 20%. Gavin Newsom is the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee for 2028 and he’s out there condemning pronouns and immigrants on his podcast.

The Trump administration and its factions don’t make sense, and I do not like any of the three as represented by Bannon, Musk, and Shapiro. Bannon might be the least offensive, but what he is saying is also mostly dumb. He is obsessed with framing China as a threat, but so many people do that that maybe it’s not even worth mentioning. But his plan for tariffs and having everyone work in factories is fantastical and childish. I’ve written about it pretty extensively: offshoring manufacturing simply slowed the development of automation. If Ross Perot would have won in 1996, and NAFTA and GATT and the WTO all would have been sunk, automation would have developed much more rapidly. And in fact, in China now, given that they’ve gotten so rich, they are automating these factories rapidly because it is cheaper than labor. Just search “automated factory China.” They are building factories as big as small cities that don’t even have humans working there.

La fábrica de coches eléctricos de Xiaomi en China.

Apenas quedan ya humanos haciendo nada; todo está automatizado. pic.twitter.com/Bx7lsbXv47

— Ma Wukong 马悟空 (@Ma_WuKong) April 7, 2024

That process is not slowing down.

So the idea of moving these factories back to the United States in order to give people jobs is stupid on its face. Further, actually creating the culture and the know-how to run these factories, then setting up the supply lines, is such a massive project that it is hardly conceivable.

Bannon may or may not be too drunk to know it, but taking the factories out of China has nothing to do with giving Americans jobs, but is rather part of a globalist scheme to create the groundwork for a war with China in order to preserve Jewish world domination through the American empire. I do understand that it is easy to be a critic and I don’t necessarily have an answer as to how you provide people with meaningful work. I think probably doing some kind of sustainable organic agriculture is something that should be explored, because that is something that can’t be done by robots and we have a serious problem with the food supply. But I’m not required to offer a solution when pointing out that moving fully automated factories from China to the US will not create a massive industrial workforce in this country (even if it was possible, which it isn’t).

I don’t really need to explain why I’m against Musk’s plan to turn humans into cyborgs who live on Mars or Shapiro’s agenda to use American blood and treasure to turn the Middle East into Greater Israel. I guess the positive thing about these three factions fighting each other to define the current political landscape is that they are all against one another, and only really agree about fighting the Chinese. Though the Shapiro faction wants a war with Iran to be the primary agenda, which would certainly make a war with the Chinese more difficult.

In sharp contrast to the confusion in the administration itself, however, and among the various power players, within the popular right-wing media, there is something approaching a consensus about a lot of things which I generally tend to agree with. If we go back to Joe, Tucker, and Candace, most of what I see is positive. There are some unfortunate issues. Joe is a pothead who isn’t really very focused on anything, and his influence is pretty scattershot. Tucker and Candace have both unfortunately gone into various stupid conspiracy theories. I know I say it every time I mention him, but Tucker promoted the spy balloon hoax. He has since said that he doesn’t want a war with China and has actually denounced people calling for war with China. Unfortunately, he’s just not really very smart. He’s not dumb, but he’s not intelligent enough to be a real thought leader, and is easily confused. The spy balloon hoax was the worst thing he promoted, but the fact that he will not acknowledge that all of this material about UFOs comes from the government itself is also terrible. Candace’s obsession with the claim that Macron’s wife is a man is too dumb. If she was a man, any and every intelligence agency could get a piece of her hair or a cup she drank from and get the DNA necessary to prove that, and therefore whatever blackmail use that a secret tranny wife would have is nullified and instead you would have China and Russia and whoever else blackmailing the French government with revealing that they did this bizarre hoax. So on its face it is just dumb. It’s funny to say it, but it’s not real life and pushing this theory really takes away from a lot of the other stuff Candace says, most of which is very important. She’s now saying Macron is some kind of MK Ultra case, which seems like something that would be true, but there isn’t really any evidence (or the evidence is the tranny wife theory, which is not supported by evidence). The main point Candace stresses about this is that Macron threatened to sue her for talking about it and he also threatens to sue lots of other people, and I think some Frenchman promoting it got like, persecuted on some tax bullshit and was forced to flee the country. But if we take just one step back, it’s sort of obvious that getting people obsessed with this kind of stupid theory would be good for the French government, as it would distract from research into other lines of inquiry. The best way to promote it would be to make a big deal of threatening anyone who talks about it and therefore making it look like it is really important to you to cover it up.

Candace has been doing a team-up with Ian Carroll, which has a quaint Batman and Robin type vibe to it.

Carroll is another figure who I think is probably good. He talks about stuff he doesn’t really seem to know very much about. This may be his age. I can’t tell if he’s 27 or 37. But I think he’s a good person, or I hope so, because he has the right kind of energy.

It’s just very unfortunate that I’m not allowed in the conversation. I earned my place at the table and my chair was kicked out. It’s whatever. I’m not going into a whine-fest about that right now, but it’s just obvious that if I was allowed to talk, these issues could be addressed and I would win and everyone would have to agree with me or look stupid. I’m saying things no one else is saying, I am bringing arguments that are needed in the discussion and which would be interesting to everyone even if I somehow was proved wrong. But I’m not able to bring my arguments. If someone else was doing it, I wouldn’t even care. But I heard Joe Rogan the other day causally drop the claim that “people in China are slaves.” There is no one pushing back on this sort of thing. When Tim Dillon was on Joe Rogan last week, Joe went into this lunatic pothead rant about aliens creating humans so that humans would create AI. People do push back on the Macron tranny wife theory, but they do so in such a way as to make it seem like they’re trying to cover it up. After the spy balloon hoax, no one asked Tucker if he was aware that China has hundreds of spy satellites, if he knows what satellites are, or if he can explain why China would be using 100-year-old technology while being the most technologically advanced country in history.

Then, of course, the Jewish issue needs to be addressed in more aggressive terms. Though honestly, on that front, Candace is getting pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. Which again just makes the whole tranny wife obsession all the more unfortunate.

The point to all of this is that while the Trump administration is clearly a complete disaster and even worse than I’d predicted (we’re now apparently going back to endless war for the Ukraine, with deportations basically stopped, while we focus on the looming threat of an Iranian invasion of Louisiana or perhaps Iowa), there is a zeitgeist emerging outside of the Trump administration that is using Trump’s energy for good, and I think this is something to be hopeful about. We should of course remember that whenever I’m hopeful, I’m wrong, while I’ve never missed with the most cynical takes possible.

The inheritors of the American right are going to have to deal with a collapse of empire, and we may be moving into a direction of realizing that, and beginning to frame things in those terms. It’s become obvious that Gavin Newsom will be president in 2028, unless something that isn’t obvious happens.

I realize now that we’ve reached the end of this article that it is not very good. But give me a bit. Let me cook, as the kids say. I took my first real break in a long time and it is going to take a bit for me to get back in a groove here. That said, I do think there are some good individual points here, the thought train is just not quite as lusciously flowing as I would have intended it to be. Personally, my favorite part was when I said that Candace Owens is like Batman and Ian Carroll like Robin. They are a dynamic duo. I’m quite sure she’s a very chaste woman, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want that Carroll guy playing Robin to my wife’s Batman, I can tell you that. This is a guy you’d expect to catch your daughter with in the barn in Brittany in the medieval times. He’d chuck a baguette at your face like a batarang and take off in a hot air balloon bound for the Orient with Professor Calculus. I hope he’s able to keep from getting sucked into some fed thing. It seems like that’s impossible for anyone working in this space to do, but we can hope.

Anyway, I’ll write another version of this later this week. Probably it needs to be two separate things, one about just how ridiculous this Trump situation has become and one about the current media landscape. There is a lot to parse out here, you know? It all fits together, but needs to be broken down into separate parts. The current state of the artist formerly known as Kanye West also probably needs to be shoved in here somewhere, because I’m pretty well convinced that they did the same thing with him they did with Trump, where they flipped out and tried to destroy him and then said “wait, wait, we can use him.” I liked some comments I saw from Dan Bilzerian about him recently where he basically said “yeah, I guess anyone talking about Jews is good, but he’s making this all seem ridiculous and insane and that really isn’t helpful.” There is an obvious positive in just desensitizing the public against the sanctity of Jews and the evilness of Hitler, but if it is just “unhinged negro goes on incoherent rant,” the desensitization factor is eventually going to be outweighed by “this guy is just making it into a joke.” Kanye has been doing streaming and he is on the level of a schizophrenic homeless person at this point. It’s a lot different than 2022 Drink Champs, where he was sort of making a point. Also, in 2022, he called Puffy a fed, after Puffy was texting him to stop talking about Jews, and then this whole Puffy sex party blackmail thing came out. But now he’s defending Puffy? I’m not really capable of putting myself into a normie’s mind and imagining how they’re viewing this, but I don’t think anyone is thinking “yeah, Kanye really does have a point,” whereas they might well have been thinking that in 2022 when he was talking about Jews in the entertainment industry and Dave Chappelle came in and backed him up.

The best timeline would be if Marco Rubio has Kanye deported to Liberia for hurting the feelings of Jews.

Lent was very good for me. The two-week fast was amazing. To be clear, it was a water fast. Some people were saying “well, Moslems fast for a month!” I don’t know who these people are. Moslems just don’t eat during the sun hours. They don’t even have restrictions on food after dark. And frankly, a lot of these Moslems do a thing where they sleep during the day. Particularly the ones who smoke do that, because not smoking is a lot harder than not eating. But hey, buddy, I do a “not eating during the sunlight” fast more or less every day and have for like, over a decade. They call this “intermittent fasting.” It’s not really fasting. I did nothing but water, Zyn, and coffee for 14 days. This was very hardcore in the worldview on most people. It didn’t really feel very hardcore for me after the first three or four days. You actually get a serious sense of euphoria. Obviously, and I think this is obvious, the biological reason for the euphoria is that your body assumes you are starving and releases endorphins that will give you the motivation to go out and find food. But it’s very good for the spirit. You feel closer to God. A lot closer. The biological reason for the euphoria and mental clarity is not irrelevant, but like anything spiritual, you are using your natural body functions for a higher purpose.

Obviously, Lent is longer than two weeks, but after the first two weeks, I just did the vegetarian Fridays. Frankly, vegetarian Fridays were worse than two weeks of no food. Worse as in more unpleasant. Vegetarianism is horrible. But the horribleness of it is meant to make you remember God.

On the whole, the Lent experience was close to life-changing, though I think “life-changing” is a very extreme piece of terminology, and not useful. When people talk about a “life-changing experience,” they are generally attributing a series of things which occurred over a period of time to a single event. That is, an experience caused them to realize changes that were already happening. I’ve had several experiences involving a “brush with death,” including having a gun to my head, a knife to my throat, witnessing a bombing (no one died, but someone was crippled), and nearly falling off a cliff. None of those I would describe as life-changing. Frankly, I never even thought much about them, other than as funny stories. People who have these experiences and then describe them as “life-changing” are simply consciously realizing something that has been working in their subconscious for a long time. And frankly, they rarely change their lives as a result of brushes with death. From what I’ve personally seen, most people never really change their lives in any meaningful sense, because people don’t change, other than as a result of age, which just tends to mellow people out rather than fundamentally change them.

I had made the decision to stop working on the site in the same way before Lent. Frankly, it had been coming for over a year. What was a life-changing experience for me was the illness I experienced in 2023, which very bizarrely coincided with the October 7 event. Shortly thereafter, a guy I had a lot of respect for was revealed to be a federal informant who flipped because he was too much of a baby to do a 36-month stint in feds. It became clear that what I was doing had become largely pointless, and it was clear I could be doing something better and more important. This wasn’t really due to the illness, I don’t think, but to age, which had led me to a better understanding of God and death. Probably, understanding God is understanding death, and the reverse. It seems improbable that anyone who understands death does not understand God. It wouldn’t even have to be the Christian God, because a lot of people throughout history have had spiritual lives without explicit Christianity. In evangelical Christianity, they teach that anyone who is not a Christian goes to Hell forever. These are of course the same people who do not believe in the Final Judgement. American Protestant Christianity, as it existed when I was a kid and probably, to the great detriment of Jews, doesn’t really exist anymore to any significant extent because boomers failed to pass it on to their children, was the most retarded form of Calvinism, where if you say John 3:16, it’s some sort of magical incantation and you automatically bypass the Final Judgement, whereas people who are of a different religion (all people, in fact, throughout history, including apparently the pre-Christian Greek philosophers who developed the basis of Christian philosophy) go to Hell forever. Having rejected that glyphosate, antibiotic, and hormone riddled version of “Christianity” and returned to a traditional version of the one true faith, I’ve come to understand that everyone will be judged, and some Buddhists and Moslems will fair better at the Final Judgement than evangelicals, who are effectively satanists (insofar as any of them still exist, they are literally celebrating the genocide in Gaza because they claim Jesus wants all those babies dead, which is cartoonishly evil and can only really be described as satanism).

What the fasting and prayer of Lent did for me was clarify and crystallize the various things that had been developing in my mind, as regards God, death, and my work on this website. It had become pointless a long time ago. I understand the readers don’t think it’s pointless. But to the reader, it is just entertainment. Regrettably, it is entertainment they were unwilling to pay for. It’s difficult not to be resentful of that. Obviously, there were some very generous donors throughout, but unfortunately, the consequences of having worked on the website at a time when the censorship regime was a lot more like North Korea than it is now cost me an incredible amount of money. I don’t talk about the details of that, because they are personal and I don’t really owe it to anyone to explain it. But somehow, and it’s still not totally clear how, or at least if I drew the obvious conclusions about how it would lead me to think very highly of myself, I became the most censored person in all of history. While it may be uncut cocaine mainlined into my ego to draw the obvious conclusions about how I became the most censored person in history, it is simply a fact that this happened. The only people in history who were more censored than me were assassinated, if you consider that to be censorship, which I guess I do. But even Snowden and Assange were allowed to appear on very public platforms. There is no one who compares to me. At some point, I will go through this in some detail, outlining just what was done to me (at least the public parts), because I’m sure a lot of people are not aware of the details at this point, or don’t remember them, but I’m literally not allowed anywhere, and even the media has me on a blacklist where they’re not even allowed to mention me, except in very specific contexts (such as claiming, presumably accurately, that Tucker Carlson’s writing staff sourced stories from my website). It’s also not really egotistical to state that I was one of the most influential living writers. It’s surreal to see all of these people who are not censored to the extent I am censored using my material. Stuff that I said ten years ago and was condemned as evil for saying is now widely accepted by a large segment of the Western population. Clearly, the genocide in Gaza was going to create animosity towards the Jews regardless, but so much of what is being said by many internet personalities is lifted directly from my material. It’s also not just stuff I wrote about the Jews and the extermination of white people. All that stuff I said about women is now also very popular. Some of the people saying this stuff have been allowed to make millions of dollars from the material, as long as they either omit specific points and/or work with the feds.

Regarding the issue of people working with the feds, I’ve concluded that there is no real way to live in the United States or one of its vassals and not end up either working with the feds, dead, or imprisoned. I’d personally rather be dead or imprisoned. Not because I’m particularly brave or moral, but rather because I have a vicious and brutal clarity about the existence of God, and simply fear Him more than men. I’m terrified of God, and while I am a sinner, I think that working for the feds, who are a satanic group, would be the most direct path to Hell. Six trillion times more direct than heterosexual sexual immorality or drunkenness.

I believe strongly in work and in telling the truth, but what I was doing with the site had become pathological. There was too much work to be healthy, and it had become charity work. The site has been totally neutered in terms of any ability to reach a new audience. On every social media platform, including the “free speech alternatives” and the “free speech haven” of Twitter, it is illegal to link the site. Even people who write “dailystormer [dot] in” are banned for doing so. I’m totally deranked on Google and other search engines, save the ones no one uses. So what was I doing? I was entertaining a group of people who had been reading the site for years, and doing so for free, while also providing material for people with very profitable careers to copy. I’m not even that bitter about it. I am slightly bitter. I know people would send money if it was easier to do. If I had a PO box, it would be filled with envelopes full of cash. But of course I’m banned from doing that (I don’t live in the United States and anyone who will pick up mail for me will have their bank accounts shut down and be investigated by the feds). I don’t think it is difficult to use crypto. But apparently, readers think it is very difficult. So there was a dancing monkey type situation. Or maybe a monkey with an accordion, if I’m being generous. I think the people who were copying my material and making millions should have let me get my beak wet, but precisely zero of them did that, to my knowledge. Obviously, they would do it in secret, and maybe some of them have sent money in secret without me knowing about it. If any of those people want to hire me to write for them now that the site is no longer giving them their talking points for free, they can contact me.

Some people offered me money after I announced that I was quitting, or downsizing, or whatever this is. But it was like, “I’ll send you $1,000 a month if you keep going,” which I have no real faith in. But I just want to be clear, if there was money, I would probably keep doing this, because it is work and I don’t really mind it and I think there are some positives, but I have responsibilities and I need money. If the site had reach and I could be a part of the conversation, I would also keep doing it for no money. But both things combined make it simply ridiculous to keep working like this.

In terms of telling the truth, spreading the message, there are surely more efficient methods for doing this than spending 60 hours a week typing on this censored website. I’m still figuring out what those are, but they must exist. The first thing I’m going to do is make every article a pdf file, which will be more easily shared. I will only write longer articles, and not about the news, or at least not daily news coverage in the way I’ve been doing for 12 years. I know I said that and then went away for a while, but that was necessary and the plan there has not changed. I’m also aware that most or all of what I’m writing right now I’ve already written, but this also seems necessary. And some of this is new. It’s not over yet. I’m going to keep writing this thing for at least another twenty minutes or so.

Oh, and I should mention that I understand there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to the site, and I could in theory back away a bit and let others work on the site. But I’ve had other writers before, and it didn’t really work. Editing is less enjoyable to me than writing, and it’s not less work. Further, I’m not a great boss. I abuse employees. This is normal for people who have a vision of what they want to do, but I am not able to pay people enough to justify the abuse. Further, and more importantly, everyone who has worked for me who lived within reach of the US authorities has ended up in prison or dead. Working for the site literally killed a guy. A guy I liked a lot. I loved him, insofar as you can love someone who you only know from the internet. He’s dead. Because he worked for the Daily Stormer. I don’t blame myself for that, but rather blame the people responsible, but I am not going to let it happen again.

Aside from money and the inefficiency of the platform, it’s not personally fulfilling for me to do the news. It was when I was allowed to be a part of the conversation. But although I am a very quick typist, doing this work involved a lot of reading, and it was reading of stuff I don’t really care very much about. As I wrote earlier this week, I am really not interested in any of this news stuff anymore, because I don’t think it matters. I’ve almost completely stopped following it in the ten weeks since I stepped back. None of this can be influenced by me or anyone else. That is a Christian understanding, the humility to understand that the world is the domain of Satan and the human is to seek God. Of course, Christian men did politics and changed things, and should do so if they can, but they cannot. Not now. Maybe when I started this website, it was still possible. I don’t know. But it’s not possible now. This is the end of an empire, it’s running on inertia, and it can only stop when it meets an immovable object, which is probably going to be the Chinese. Virtually the only thing I’m interested in at this point is China and what the future will look like when this empire of doom finally crashes against it and breaks apart. I’m certain enough of this that I am almost ready to start talking about the problems we will face in a world dominated by the Chinese. However, those theoretical problems are so minor compared to the problems we face right now that they are hardly worth mentioning. The main problem, really not even a problem but an issue that will need addressed, will be limiting the ability of Chinese to purchase property in white countries. It is reasonable to just allow them to have the ports; I don’t care if San Francisco and New York become Chinese cities, but we shouldn’t allow them to buy up all of the land in America and Europe. I don’t think what is happening in Southeast Asia can be judged as good or bad, but what the Chinese are doing is buying everything, then moving in people, and marrying the women (with women coming in to marry the upper class men) and raising their kids with Chinese as a first language. All of Asia will be Siniofied within 100 years (that probably includes South Korea and Japan, but primarily because they are not breeding, rather than because the Chinese are moving in already and marrying the people). This sort of thing has always happened, and isn’t good or bad. There were like 10 distinct languages in France in the Middle Ages and a lot more than that in what is currently the Russian Federation. Large cultures always absorb smaller cultures. It’s funny that in the Western propaganda machine, they constantly talk about the Chinese government, whereas no one in Asia, other than CIA-run cults in Japan and Korea and the US vassal of the Philippines, has a strong view of the Chinese government and is instead concerned about all the people moving in.

Chinese people have more or less zero interest in white women, only mixing with other Asians, so that issue won’t be a threat in white countries, but they will buy all of the land if they’re allowed to. That is, as far as I can gather, the only potential issue. I mean, the only potential issue that will come from the Chinese. Figuring out how to reestablish a society in the wake of the collapse of the American empire is going to be a very big issue, though I think it will probably happen naturally. There will be poverty, not starvation but relative poverty, and poverty makes people return to a more natural way of living, and it causes a resurgence of religion. But there will be a strange generation as these things are arranging themselves.

The rulers of the empire are aware of the fact that China is going to break them. Or they’re more aware of that then they were. But they didn’t prepare for this at all. The 1990s plan was obviously to move the industry to China, which would raise their quality of life and cause them to become a Western style gay anal democracy. It took a very long time for them to realize that wasn’t happening. In 1996’s “Clash of Civilizations,” Samuel P. Huntington explained that while technological and economic development tends to lead to social liberalism, that wasn’t going to happen in China, where they would maintain a traditional/authoritarian system despite material progress. Other people probably said it too, though he was the most influential and respected person to say it. But the project of moving industry to China was so profitable for the elite, no one wanted to hear it. So the US enabled a massive country with people with higher IQs than whites to become the richest country in the world within three decades. This was probably the most incredible thing that has ever happened. There are people driving Lambos living in high-rise condos in Shanghai whose parents were driving rickshaws through rice fields living in bamboo hunts. The IQ, their racial character, and the exposure to Western technologies was going to result in China developing rapidly regardless, but literally handing them the entire industry of the Western world definitely sped up the process.

They are still moving at this same rate. Part of living in a traditional society means that a young man who works hard and makes money has access to women and social status, which means the young men are hungry. The claims made by various people on YouTube (primarily YouTube, very few people write about this idea because anyone who reads would not fall for it) that China is not really developed and is secretly poor is one of the most bizarre things ever. People can go there. Plane tickets are the biggest cost, because again as a benefit of a traditional/authoritarian culture, the fact that it’s a rich country does not mean that lodgings and food are ridiculously expensive. People can go visit Xinjiang and try to find this secret genocide. You can go there. Anyone can go to Xinjiang and try to find the genocide and the organ-harvesting facilities. You will not be prevented by the cops from wandering around trying to find this secret genocide. I guess you will have to try to find tunnels, because the fact that there is no satellite evidence of the secret genocide means that it has to be happening in some kind of secret tunnel system, maybe something like the facilities under Raccoon City. You can also go the churches, and try to find the evidence of the secret banning of Christianity, which we’ve all heard so much about from US politicians. You can look for any of the other atrocities the US government and CIA people on YouTube claim are happening.

In terms of things that are actually true about China that could be considered negative, it was pretty corrupt before Xi Jinping became the Emperor. But that was all during the weird period where the US still had some significant influence and was trying to turn the country into a democracy. Now that it is well established as a traditionalist/authoritarian state, the corruption is all gone. Another benefit of a traditional society, that is. But yeah, the videos of buildings falling down were real, because corrupt building inspectors would take payoffs to allow builders to use fake cement. That doesn’t happen now though. Anyone who tried it would be executed. During Xi’s corruption purge, the criminals who could escape went to Southeast Asia, so a Chinese built building recently collapsed in Bangkok. But enough well-off Chinese are moving to these Southeast Asian countries now and establishing political influence that they are implementing Xi-like anti-corruption protocols. Malaysia is totally incredible now. Well, Kuala Lumpur is.

What we are seeing now is a move by the United States into a kind of “weapons of mass destruction” mode against the Chinese. People laugh bitterly about the lies of the Bush Administration, and wonder how people went along with that gibberish from Jeffrey Goldberg and Judith Miller. Everyone jokes about the Trump piss tape now. But somehow even right-wingers – even Tucker Carlson – take seriously the idea that there is a Raccoon City base under Xinjiang harvesting organs without anesthetic and that Christianity is banned in China.

This is what the Trump administration is all about. As I’ve written six million times, you would have to be retarded to think the 2020 election was faked and they just decided to not fake the 2024 election. It’s a ridiculous claim. What happened is that it was obvious that the Democrats were not capable of creating the kind of jingoism necessary for a big war and that Trump was. So that’s where all of this is going, and I guess that’s really where I feel I’m able to offer something in terms of commentary at this point in my career, because it’s something no one else is talking about and it’s the most important thing to be talking about. Candace has taken up the task of defending Harvey Weinstein, so I don’t have to do that anymore. You guys think she got that from me? Is there somewhere else she could have gotten it? I am pretty sure I was the only person defending Harvey. Anyway, good on her, because that situation is insane. (I do think that after he gets cleared of the fake rape charges however he should be prosecuted for making Good Will Hunting. Aside from being the worst film ever made, neither Damon nor Affleck are Irish and this film was a blood libel against the Irish.)

I would actually like to go to China and make a documentary where I play a Steven Colbert (Comedy Central version) type character looking for the Raccoon City organ harvesting facility under Xinjiang. China is not really doing anything to defend themselves from any of these libels. If they get asked about the secret genocide by an American journalist, they will say “yeah but why isn’t it visible from satellites and why do none of you people go there and look for it?” But it is a ridiculous situation to have people claiming Christianity is banned in China and the videos of trains running through skyscrapers are faked and the country is secretly poor. The invisible Moslem genocide is something where I don’t even understand how Ben Sasse can say it without cracking up laughing. I think if I was able to interview him and ask how a genocide can be taking place and not be seen on satellites he would say “you ever play Resident Evil?” with a perfectly straight face. The other thing about that is that it remains unsaid that the supposed reason they are committing the genocide is that the Uyghurs are terrorists. This is while every single person talking about this invisible genocide is supporting the wholesale slaughter of terroristic and homophobic toddlers in Gaza.

Speaking of Gaza, the biggest impediment to this planned war with China is, ironically, Israel. Israel wants a war with Iran and it sure looks like they’re going to get it. Assuming the US could sustain that, it would take at least a decade, during which period they would have little ability to molest China, and in a decade, China is going to be so far ahead of the West that it will be like the contrast of the British visiting Africa in the 19th century.

To be clear, I don’t think there is much chance the US can win a war against China, even if they are somehow able to avoid the Iran thing, which they probably will not be able to do. The sanctions regime they want to do is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the one they did against Russia. Some of the biggest tech companies in China are praying for a full ban on all Nvidia GPUs because it will mean massive subsidies from the government for the development of a domestic GPU industry. But I mean, they built DeepSeek, which is a lot better than ChatGPT, with the H800s. And the current sanctions are being bypassed not just through Vietnam and Cambodia, but through Taiwan itself. The US can “secondary sanction” Vietnam and Cambodia for buying chips and running them to China, but they can’t exactly sanction Taiwan for that, can they?

None of these economic measures make any sense, which is why so many in the government and media are already pushing for like, a real war. There is no Ukraine equivalent to fight it in, so I don’t even know what the idea is here. There are a billion and a half people in China, and they’ve built all of the medium range missile systems to sink American ships, so they would immediately take Taiwan and cut off chips to the US (those would be sanctions the US could not bypass). Further, the entire global economy is based on China already, so everything globally would just stop working in the case of a real war.

All of this Trump tariff bullshit is about China. The goal is to try to get the industry out of China, which is not really possible, and if it is moved to Vietnam, China would just invade the country and seize it in the case of a war. It’s probably also worth mentioning that just like Russia, China would fire nukes before losing a war. The difference is that because Russia made the unfortunate decision to wait until the war actually started to censor US propaganda on the internet, and therefore still has a significant fifth column in the country, China is a unified country where there is really no one who would run it any differently than it is run now.

These people running America are all too stupid to actually figure out a way to defeat China. They are going to try, but it is very unlikely it will succeed.

Trump is doing the biggest military budget in the history of the universe, so there is no real room for doubt about the fact that this is where it is all headed. Military recruitment is at post 9/11 levels. There is no threat to the United States, and there really can’t be a threat to the United States, so the only explanation for this is a planned war of aggression against someone or someones. Again, the most interesting thing is that the biggest impediment to a war with China, which is clearly the only way the US can sustain itself, is the Israeli obsession with a war with Iran. Iran is completely irrelevant to the long term sustainability of the US empire, but the US government is a subsidiary of Israel, so it’s not really capable of acting in its own interest. Israel I’m sure supports a war with China, and hilariously, the Raccoon City underground genocide facility story was originated by the Israeli media. But they are more concerned about Iran.

Probably, things would be better if more Americans were aware of the fact that China is not actually a threat. And I’m probably the only person who can actually explain that. I say that with all humbleness. But who else is saying this? Tucker Carlson literally promoted the spy balloon hoax. Not reading the news, I’ve had time to read so much other stuff I like, and I’ve been trying to get a grip on World War One, and they were using spy balloons then. I still can’t believe Tucker pushed that hoax. He has backed off the “Jesus was an alien” type stuff and is now claiming that the UFOs are demons or something. I think he’s becoming more of a Christian, and I believe that the closer you get to Christ, the more capable you are of recognizing truth (which is why satanic Western civilization is totally based on lies). The problem is that there is no real Christian leadership. We are hearing now that church attendance is rising, at least among young men, and this is logical and to be expected given many factors, most prominently the denial of sex and family to young men. But what church are they supposed to go to? I’m sure they vaguely are aware that they are seeking a return to tradition, after having been so emasculated by this civilization. But if they go to a Protestant church in America, they’re instead going to get a lecture about either the need to genocide Gaza because October 7th was a real Holocaust and Jews are the chosen ones, or a lecture on the joys of anal, or both. And while there are still some good Catholic churches, most of them are not great.

That’s the other thing I want to focus on in the writing. I want to write about Christian themes, to an extent, but I’m not really sure how much I can offer on that which is new. It’s a 2,000 year old religion that is more or less understood. I do intend to go through the Church Fathers and do a series sort of summarizing them, because I think that the early material is not considered enough. But the bigger issue I would like to address is the fact that there aren’t really good options for people seeking a church. That “Pope” is finally burning in Hell, allegedly having OD’d on poppers (RFK was right on the ball again). But every contender for the next Pope is a homosexual, most of them made cardinals by Francis. Years ago, I predicted something that was not very hard to predict, which is that the next Pope would be the real hardcore homo and destroy whatever remains of the legitimacy of the Vatican. However, I also predicted it wouldn’t be until this next pope that the church would implement gay anal marriage, and Francis did that. Yes, “Fiducia Supplicans” is gay marriage, they just call it something different. It is an official church officiation of a homosexual union. Look at the photos.

It’s a gay marriage.

But this next pope will admit that it is a gay marriage and call it that, and also allow female deacons and probably female priests. But that is good, because it is going to lead to a schism, and then there will be an option for a traditional church. Everything tends to work out, you know? I think often of the several times King David said that God turns the plans of evil men to good, and what the homosexuals of the Catholic Church have done is create a situation where there is going to have to be a schism and therefore a real church.

Obviously, the Orthodox Church is also a traditional church, but that is kind of difficult if you don’t live in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, given that they are ethnic churches. People should try it if they are looking for a church. In my experience, the Greek ones in America are the most accessible, as they’ve been here the longest and no one speaks Greek. If you go to a Russian one, I’m sure everyone will be welcoming and friendly, but it would most likely be difficult to integrate. There might be some mixed Orthodox churches in various places in America and Western Europe, probably technically Russian, but attended by different ethnicities and speaking the local language. The Orthodox Church is really just a version of the medieval Catholic Church. They say the traditional Nicene Creed (minus the filioque, obviously), which of course says “one holy Catholic and Apostolic church,” meaning that it is a Catholic church in the basic meaning of the term. The pre-Vatican 2 doctrinal differences are trivial. Filioque itself is something no one would ever even think about unless they were a very serious scholar. (I guess I agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as Christ Himself does, and I don’t think adding “also from the Son” was useful, but it doesn’t seem very important to my life. I’ve thought about it from several different angles, and the fact that the trinity always existed, “consubstantial and eternal,” seems to make the origin of the Holy Spirit a mystery.) Probably the most interesting difference is that the Roman Catholics believe that original sin means that humans are born responsible for Adam’s sin, while Orthodox believe that we are born innocent with a sin nature inherited from Adam that makes us incapable of not sinning. The interesting part is that if you asked most Catholics, they would probably not know that it is official doctrine that we are born responsible for the sin of a dead ancestor. Overall, the differences were all very academic, before Vatican 2. There is none that I think affects my life or spirituality, and the reason for the continued split, before Vatican 2, was political in my view. Of course after Vatican 2, let alone after the Francis faggotization, there are fundamental differences, and the Orthodox are right about every difference. Oh, and before Vatican 2, the real thing that matters is the pope, who over the last few hundred years has been given all of these ridiculous powers. A lot of Catholics were sent into crises of faith when Francis did that gay marriage thing, while if the Patriarch of Moscow were to say there should be gay marriage in churches, he would simply be declared evil and insane and no one would be forced to question their faith. Giving the Bishop of Rome all of these powers that basically turn him into a god was not good and it isn’t even very old. The ability to speak with infallibility was only awarded to him in 1870, for example. Why you would need to add something like that nearly 2,000 years after the founding of the religion is unclear, and it may be that the Church was already being infiltrated by homos. Banning marriage was a very bad idea. Saint Paul did not stutter: “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” I don’t think anyone has a right to change things laid down by Saint Paul. Yes, celibacy is better for a priest, and maybe it should be required for bishops, but when you ban marriage in a profession where you necessarily have unrestricted access to pubescent boys, you are laying the framework for a homosexual cult, which is obviously what the Vatican is now. This is what destroyed Ireland, and when Conor I takes his throne, he should establish the fact that the Celtic Church was not actually run by Rome for hundreds of years after its founding and shouldn’t be now.

There should be one Church. Christ did not come to make a series of cults. But I support people going to whatever church they can find that actually teaches the religion as it is written in the Bible and expounded on by the saints.

The third topic I want to focus on is what exactly Bruce Springsteen’s health program has been since he suffered vaccine injury. He recently appeared with the Killers and I cannot believe how good he looks.

He looks great for any 75 year old, but after that vax, he looked like a corpse. And he wasn’t looking too good before that. Did he do some kind of genetic engineering on himself? Is he doing stem cells?

Speaking of the Boss, he is still playing songs he wrote in the 70s, even though he’s been recording new music since. None of it ever resonated. Greetings from Ashbury Park is still his best album, by a lot. The only non-70s album worth a shit was Nebraska. The point is, I don’t want to be 75 and “playing the hits,” making nigger and kike jokes for teenagers. I’m not even sure that’s funny anymore. It’s still funny to promote rape. That will be funny as long as women’s rights exist. When I see people doing edgy jokes I did a decade ago, I feel disgusted. I actually thought Taylor Swift’s Midnights was good, not as good as 1989, but okay. But it’s like, if you know this was all copied from 1980s synth pop by an ugly Jew, it just feels cheap. Especially if you compare it to Billie Eilish, who (in fact her brother) is doing something that is actually original. Or was. The industry Jews trying to turn a fat Irish sow pillhead into a sex symbol was totally ridiculous and really we can probably blame Taylor Swift for that. Billie was interesting in large part because she was not marketed as a sex symbol. That last album was just tripe. Poor Finneas is 26 going on 76. Jews should not be allowed to run these industries. They just destroy everything good and pure.

I will write separately about the experience of not drinking alcohol during Lent. I’m still processing the takeaways from that. Primarily, I think not drinking just reminded me what a blessing it is that God invented alcohol. Alcohol is such an important part of life. Remember that one of Christ’s miracles was that when the party ran out of booze, he created more through magic. If you don’t drink, I respect it, and that’s fine for you. But for some of us, life without alcohol is like potatoes without salt.

I have been clickbaited by Tucker Carlson into believing Matt Walsh was going to address the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This was the title of the video:

There was two hours of inane talk about “woke” bullshit that I do not care about at all. To Matt’s credit, in this two hours he said some stuff that maybe matters, though it was not articulated well and was very boring. I skipped most of it. I don’t want to hear about trannies or niggers anymore. I don’t even think he talked about niggers. He did say women shouldn’t work and seemed to imply they shouldn’t vote (though he wouldn’t say it because he is a gutless coward who thinks a beard is a substitute for a jawline).

When the discussion of the Douglas Murray meltdown on Joe Rogan was finally brought up, Walsh started ducking and diving like a pro dodgeball player. He literally did the “this has nothing to do with America and we should be talking about America” bit. I was shocked. As everyone is aware, Israel has a lot more to do with America than it has to do with Israel. Israel would not even exist at all without America (which Tucker, to his credit, said). If this was the Hutus and the Tutsis, you could say “well, this has nothing to do with us,” and that is in fact what people did say when that conflict was happening (even though it wasn’t actually true, as the US supported the RPF invasion and the CIA provided the weapons, but if you’re as low information, or pretending to be, as Matt Walsh, you could say that). But Israel’s war is America’s war, and all of this baby’s blood is on the hands of the godless and satanic fatties of America, and saying “it’s not my problem” is serial killer ethics disguised as confusion and lack of understanding.

Pressured by Tucker to make some kind of statement, Walsh went so far as to claim that Murray had a good point when he started asking what else Israel could have been expected to do in response to October 7, implying what they are doing was the only option. Well, first of all, they could have not let it happen on purpose, as has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt. Actually, first, Israel could have not stolen Palestine to begin with, then forced the local people into de facto concentration camps, where they regularly slaughter them (“mow the lawn”). After it did happen, they could have negotiated with Hamas. If they were going to execute a war, they could have not targeted civilians, which no serious person claims they don’t do.

But I will agree with Matt that none of that really has anything to do with the US. Except that it only has anything to do with the US, because it is all American weapons and money. Beyond the war, the entire Jew economy is collapsed because of this war and is propped up by fat American psychopaths who continue to pay taxes and gorge themselves on tasty treats while the most extreme massacre of a civilian population in human history continues unabated.

Matt Walsh is human garbage and in a serious country, people would be throwing rotted fruit and root vegetables at him whenever he appeared in public. This is the worst form of “controlled opposition.” I do not want to hear about trannies. I do not care about trannies, and that whole thing is over anyway. I don’t even want to hear about immigrants, because they are not being deported. Exactly as I predicted before the election, there was a big show for a few days with some raids; now we’re looking at a situation where less than 10% of the people who came in during Biden are being deported. And there were already tens of millions of people who needed to be deported. And that’s if you believe only illegals should be deported, and I personally believe every immigrant should be deported and frankly, the overwhelming majority of blacks should be put in prison. I want to hear about Jews, and if you’re not talking about Jews, nothing you say has any meaning.

Walsh continued to claim that we should be talking about America instead of the Middle East, but you cannot talk about America without talking about the Jews, because America is the Jews. There is no meaningful distinction between America as a corporate entity and international Jewry. This is so obvious that dancing around it requires John Wick tier choreography, and this choreographical skill is the only reason anyone knows who Matt Walsh is (he certainly is not interesting, insightful, handsome or talented in any way).

Tucker was asking Walsh about why society is degrading and the answers were so stupid and vague. There is a group of people who came up with the idea of abolishing the family and destroying social bonds through massive immigration and homosexual indoctrination programs, and it was not fat blue haired women with nose rings. It was Jews. This isn’t debatable. It is as documented as anything ever in history. Things do not just happen randomly. The ancient social order shared by every culture in all of human history doesn’t just decay because a blue haired woman with a nose ring is angry at her father. This is embarrassing and Matt Walsh should exile himself to a desert and live in a cave and eat rats. There is no way in a trillion years he can erase this shame.

As regards the Douglas Murray vs. Dave Smith debate, I’m not going to attack Smith too much, as I liked it. But in fact, Dave Smith is the Jew who was appointed to criticize Israel. He will never say that Hamas was justified in attacking Israel, even though that is obvious. Murray and Walsh want to ask what Israel was supposed to do, but how can you ask that without asking what the Palestinians were supposed to do? How was October 7 not a legitimate military action? What is the argument? It is just taken for granted that it was some kind of Holocaust-like genocidal attack, and that narrative has remained even whilst the rapes and civilian murders have been proved to be Holocaust-like bullshit.

Sorry, anyone who doesn’t support Hamas, or at least acknowledge that they were acting in a perfectly legitimate way in attacking an occupation force that has been at war with them for 80 years, is not a serious person and should exile themselves to a cave in a desert and eat rats until their dying days.

Smith also won’t say why it is that Jews are comfortable slaughtering children on a scale that history has never witnessed, which is that they believe that all non-Jews are non-human. This is pretty important. Gallant actually provided a very clear prompt from which to explain this when he referred to Palestinians as “human animals.” The big reveal is that Jews don’t think white people are any better than the Palestinians, and they would be slaughtering our children just the same if they could. Israel is a Jewish state, insofar as it is an actual state (it is not actually, but that’s what they call it). Israel’s behavior as a state is Jewish behavior. No one else has ever purposefully murdered children like this. Nazi atrocities are fake, but if you go through the other humanitarian crises in history, which were primarily communist, you will not find people purposefully mass slaughtering children. It has never happened before. Not even the blacks ever did this.

Portraying Israel as a “rogue state” is not especially useful. It is a Jewish state. The behavior of Israel is Jewish behavior. This is trivially demonstrated by simply looking at the Jews’ own words regarding how they feel about non-Jews.

It’s good Dave Smith did the Murray debate and demonstrated just how pathetic the pro-Israel side is and it’s clearly changed the narrative, with very many people now afraid to even try to engage in any discussion of the topic. Barry Weiss and Sam Harris can go out there and say Murray did a great job and really proved that Israel is a very moral state, but the only people who listen to them are other Jews and Satan-worshiping “evangelical Christians.” So good on him, I guess, but we are still not having a real discussion.

Everything is still completely locked down. All of these discussions are curated and controlled. Tucker Carlson says he wants to interview anyone who is censored. I still haven’t gotten an invite. Why I am still dangerous, if we’re doing free speech now? I am a gentleman and a scholar. I have never done anything weird.

We need to progress this discussion. The solution may be a “Heil Hitler” rap song by a rapidly degrading mentally ill negro.

I can’t get emotional or excited about any of this. Not now. I do still think it is fascinating and hilarious. Among the most fascinating and hilarious aspects is the fact that people think they can change it, which leads to grotesque and potentially demoralizing stupidity. But it’s only demoralizing if you can’t laugh at it. Laughter is the great weapon against demoralization. Suffering, death, and the destruction of the things men spent thousands of years building must also be laughed at, and this shouldn’t be considered morbid or callous. What else can you do? You can’t stop it. So your other option is to cry about it, which does nothing good for you or anyone else. Laughing liberates you from the world.

Everyone is stressing, getting all emotional. This is the height of moronism. You’re not going to starve. No one starved when the Soviet Union collapsed. You can’t really starve in the current year, because of industrial food production techniques. Not even the Africans are starving anymore, unless it’s a warzone and some top nigger is using starvation as a weapon. The only existential threat to you is not getting laid, or getting laid and being soul-raped by a woman. But that is only existential if you let it be. Otherwise it’s more of an annoyance. Oh, and being sent to a war. They are probably going to want to send you to a war. But that’s a bridge you’ll have to burn when you get to it. There are a lot of ways to get out of such a situation, and if you get in it, you can desert. I don’t know if it’s illegal to encourage desertion. I think it probably isn’t right now, because we’re not at war, but if these Jews sent me to a war, I would desert.

It’s exhausting to imagine that there are still people loyal to the idea of America or of the West more broadly. If you let it exhaust you, that is. I don’t allow it. Not now. We all saw Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan, right?

When I was on break, I wasn’t paying attention too much, but I certainly watched that.

When anyone associates their identity with America or “the West,” I look at them exactly the way I look at the pederast Murray in that interview. This is maybe the most ridiculous version, but it is not qualitatively different than any other version of allegiance to this Beast. Murray is absolutely correct in his analysis: the West exists to facilitate the sodomizing of children and put sadistic women in charge of every aspect of your life. They don’t call it “the Great Satan” for nothing.

There are no redeeming qualities about so-called “Western civilization.” Some nigger rapping about Hitler is funny. It is becoming less funny every second. I can’t laugh at it anymore or even summon up a sensible chuckle, but I recognize that it is funny. It’s not actually funny in itself. The funny thing now is that people are paying attention to it. The Jewish meltdown is funny. Jews melting down is something that will be eternally funny. This is due to their lack of any ability for self-reflection. As long as they cannot observe their own behavior, they are stuck on a Möbius strip of circus clownery. If there was a redeeming quality of Western civilization (there is not, but if there was), it would be that Jewish meltdowns are always funny.

These Jewish meltdowns will of course lead to endless suffering and death. And torture. Including homosexual torture. So that must be looked at as a joke as well.

That Australian-Paki woman who YouTube spams you with, you all know her (she talks about how trannies are silly and how the entire purpose of Western civilization is to defend Jews, both of which are very accurate observations), interviewed “Ami Horowitz” a couple weeks ago after he went to Ramallah and asked people what they thought about October 7th and whether the destruction of Gaza was worth it and whether they would be willing to suffer the same in the West Bank, and in the clip, the young men all have a sort of smirk as they answer “of course October 7 was good and yeah we’d suffer like the Gazans suffered in order to take revenge on the Jews.”

The suffering in Gaza is one of the great human tragedies, but what is the purpose of crying about it? The Palestinians themselves don’t cry about it. They cry when their relatives die, but they don’t cry about the fundamental nature of the situation itself, which is perceived with healthy, aloof fatalism.

Jews want to suck you into all of these emotions about everything. This “culture war” gibberish is the most obvious example. But it applies to everything. We all saw the protests against the Jews. What did they accomplish? I support them, of course, but they didn’t do anything. Because no one can have any impact on anything that is happening. It is all going to happen exactly as it is going to happen, and the only thing anyone has any control over is their own life, and even that is limited.

Everything is this fake world created by electronic media is designed to suck the life out of you. No one can suffer the emotional toll of engaging with all of this or any of this and remain sane. The only thing that is actually real is what is in your immediate environment. Political change would only be possible if the peasantry wanted it, and started killing cops and doing targeted assassinations of politicians and other elite operatives, and that isn’t going to happen. I wouldn’t support it if it did happen, of course, as I am a pacifist. But that would be the only way to enact political change, and it isn’t going to happen. There is zero chance of that happening. Have you seen how fat these people are? The ones who aren’t fat are joining the military to fight various wars for the Jews.

This is not meant to encourage apathy, which is what the steelman argument against these musings would be. If you had an ability to change things and I was telling you to stop trying, that would be preaching apathy. But you don’t have the ability to change anything and if you think you do, you are delusional and actually insane. You have the ability, to an extent, to make your own life meaningful, and engaging with this shitshow you see on the internet is crippling your ability to live your own life.

You are going to die. Everything is necessarily headed to inevitable tragedy. No one lays on their death bed and wishes they would have spent more time obsessing over political bullshit they had no control over. The stoics were right, the Christians were right. Everything you need is inside of you and everything outside of you is an illusion at best. The future is a spook. The only thing real is the countdown to death and the things you choose to do during that countdown.

This thing here is totally similar to the thing I wrote yesterday, I realize. I’m attempting to set a frame here. The thesis is obvious and straightforward, but it surely must feel alien and esoteric to anyone imprisoned in this digital demiurge.

I of course hope that Conor McGregor overthrows the government of Ireland. That was actually my idea, frankly. He got it from my website, when I explained the obvious fact that he has the absolute ability to do this and there is literally nothing stopping him. The Americans would try to stop him, but is NATO going to invade Ireland? If they did it would be hilarious. Most likely, the worst they would do is make the country poor, and as long as King Conor can keep the whisky flowing, the Irish will tolerate poverty in exchange for an ethnic cleansing. There could also be a violent uprising in Romania. It’s less likely than in Ireland at this point, probably, but it’s possible.

So I’m not without hope for political happenings. I’m without hope for Donald Trump and America and I think anyone who has hope is a child. Telling people they can say retard and fag now and trannies can’t play sports is like throwing a piece of rotting meat to a starving dog. They had to make this country slightly less gay if they wanted to fight a major war. I saw this fat Irish guy say that when the entertainment companies found out that woke media was not profitable they stopped making it and this is totally wrong. They knew it wouldn’t be profitable when they started doing it. Then they stopped it for some reason. It’s a conspiracy. They are manufacturing a simulacrum of patriotism and excitement because they want a big war and anyone can see no one is going to fight a war for screeching trannies and buckwild niggerfests. Find someone who is obsessed with talking about woke who isn’t also talking about the need to support Israel and the threat of Chinese people. I’m not aware of a single individual who thinks the “culture war” is important who doesn’t also support Israel and claim Chinese people are communists who want to take away our gay rights and women’s liberation. This is all building towards a big war and if you’re caught up in the spectacle of it you’re a pawn in this very obvious scam.

Trump was allowed to win the fake election because he is the perfect figure to reframe the American culture to make it into something that is maybe capable of doing a big war. It’s the biggest war budget in the history of any country. To what end? Where is the threat? America cannot be invaded and insofar as there are interests in the Western hemisphere, any of these countries can be bullied with psychological operations and special forces squads. Trump’s administration is doing a Hitler-style military buildup but Hitler actually had people trying to destroy his country. America’s only possible reason for doing this is offensive. Severely offensive. The background of this back and forth with Putin, with Trump out there whining and claiming Russia should just surrender to his whims, is that Russia is refusing to decouple from China for rather obvious reasons. Maybe Russia has been weakened enough that the Trump people would settle for an end to the war in exchange for an agreement to not support Iran, but that’s less than clear. What the Americans want is for Russia to end their relationship with China, because China is the real threat to American global dominance.

It’s all ridiculous and it’s all very obvious. Find someone celebrating the triumph of women’s sports and the largely symbolic closing of the border who is not also pushing for war with the Chinese over – over what? What did China do? Made better AI and video games? They are going to invade America? What for? Why would they want to invade America? Can you imagine how expensive that would be? And what would the goal be? To force people into communism? What? What does that mean? If China did invade and conquer America and force their system on us, it would be objectively a good thing, but there is simply no way that would happen because it is impossible and there would be no point.

Ignore the hype.

Just relax.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for there is no other good life.

It should be obvious though apparently it isn’t: none of the things that are happening actually even matter to the individual, because the future is already written, at least in the ways that will have any significant impact on the individual.

It’s possible that there are various alternative outcomes. I don’t really believe it, but I acknowledge the possibility. The future has yet to occur and that means anything is possible. But even if something miraculous (that is to say, viciously improbable) were to occur, and to affect the status of the individual, it would simply be a random event, the result of unknown and presumably unknowable factors, as no one has the ability to influence it.

This Donald Trump situation is as gay and retarded as I had predicted. I said that there was no reason for me to write about his presidency because I wrote it all before he was elected, and this has proved cartoonishly accurate. The peasants can all feel very joyful because trannies are finally getting what for, and the young men can go off and join the military because it is no longer a gay orgy (at least not publicly, it of course remains a gay orgy in private, and an especially sick one, if one may quantify the depravity of gay orgies). “America is back,” they will say, as they say “gay” and “retard” while odious Jews dance around in their strange hats and torture helpless poultry.

There is little reason to pay attention to any of it, unless you are making money from paying attention. I hope you are making money. If you’re not making money, you need to ask yourself what it is you are doing. Assuming you are not crawling around in the forest making a real man of yourself, and/or studying philosophy and building a true empire of the spirit within your internal chambers, if you are not making money, you are wasting your life. One minute at a time.

The Americans, and by that I mean the Jews, will either triumph or they will not, and nothing you or I can alter this outcome. This makes thinking too much about the issue a waste of your vital lifeforce. For what good can come of pondering something upon which you can have no impact? You can pray they lose. But that is all. Considering the details is foolish now. I do not wish to go on and on about the Trump situation. It is boring and what will it get me? Most support the man because he is a very large man and they do not think beyond that. Even I am not against the man. How could I be? He is very large, after all. But he is a pawn in this tedious game, which I find so silly and childish.

The tariffs are not real in the sense he presented them. There has never been an iPhone made in the United States, nor any other high tech gadget. In the 1990s, when the manufacturing was moved to China, TVs looked like this:

Most of them were already made in Japan.

Moving the factories for consumer electronics to the United States would be completely impossible in a democracy, where nothing of consequence ever gets done unless the politicians are making money from it. Even in a dictatorship or an autocracy or whatever it is they are calling rationally managed governments these days, it would take many years to move these kinds of factories back to the United States. The supply chains alone would take many years to establish, and that would be in a dictatorship. In a democracy, you could try for ten thousands of years and it wouldn’t get any further than a rail line from Los Angeles to the bay. It is a baby’s dream to imagine that iPhone and microprocessor factories are going to start springing up in America in the spring. Who is taking this seriously? Babies are not following the news, so who are these people who think this is serious?

It’s a “negotiating tactic,” I’m sure. But nothing is going to get negotiated other than some symbolic nonsense, maybe a Toyota assembly plant in Arizona and a worthless Intel assembly station in Ohio. The goal is a “decoupling” from China, because the plan, the underlying and ultimate plan, is some sort of lunatic war with the Chinese in order to destroy or cripple the competition to the Jewish empire.

Of course everyone figured out that no one of any competence is going to fight for trannies and niggers, so they dropped the tranny and nigger obsession. They will of course enlist all of these immigrants. Why did they bring all of these animals into our countries? To hurt us, of course, but what will they do with them? They will line them up for their wars.

That is where it is all going. It is going towards a big war, because Jews cannot tolerate anything other than complete and total domination of everything in the universe. Our hope is that it never happens, because the machinery to accomplish such a feat is too unwieldy and too broken by decades of corruption, perversion, and the inefficiency that accompanies corruption and perversion. The Chinese have already won every battle but the military one, and even if it was possible to stop them from getting AI chips, and it isn’t possible, they will still win that fight. The hopes and dreams of the kikes and faggots and all who oppose the new Sino Global Order are all riding on the idea that a military battle can be arranged and that the Chinese are not capable of prevailing due to their own internal discord. Of course, a war would likely solve whatever discord exists within China, but this is not beneficial to the Americans, so they simply ignore it.

I am bored with all of it. It’s all so very obvious that it cannot possibly be interesting, and the inane gibbering of the masses of media buffoons with their insincere or at best moronic hot takes inspires nothing but loathing. Why should I add to this noise? Of what benefit is it to me, or to you, dear reader? If there was a financial incentive for me, that would be an answer, and perhaps a satisfactory one, but no such incentive exists. The collective reader made the decision to leave me destitute and alone and I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t have done that, I tend to protect the things I care about, but who am I to judge? I am nothing and no one.

I would simply advise you all to focus on the things you enjoy, the things that bring meaning to your life. There is nothing of meaning and very little enjoyment to pretending that this global charade is in any way serious. I hope there are pogroms, I hope a dictator rises up and defeats the Jews, but that is more than unlikely (though not impossible). If it happens, I will praise him and do whatever in my ability to support him. But I will not hope for it. I will, instead, try to enjoy myself as best I can, try to find some meaning in this hellish existence.

It’s not all bad. It is probably all going to end very badly, but what of it? That has nothing to do with today and probably nothing to do with tomorrow either. None of us lives forever, and therefore the future is always going to eventually be tragic and final, so why think too much of it?

Saint Peter asked to be crucified upside down. Nero’s goons obliged him. If I think about it for long enough, I will cry. It’s happened several times. I will ask that I be crucified while being beamed through the Large Hadron Collider. There are no honorable Romans to oblige me this modest request. But there is no benefit to thinking much about it.

NEWTOWN, CT—In a plot twist even QAnon couldn’t predict, conspiracy king Alex Jones was accidentally added to a private group chat of the supposed “Sandy Hook victims”—who, it turns out, are not only alive, but thriving, gossiping about HBO’s The White Lotus, and documenting their scandalous sex lives in shocking detail.

HOW IT HAPPENED:

A typo in a Signal invite led Jones straight into the “Newtown 26 – Still Here, Still Fabulous” chat, where he was immediately met with:

• Selfies from “dead” children—now grown, tan, and sipping martinis in Ibiza
• Graphic hookup stories from parents supposedly “grieving” their lost kids
• Fervent debates about whether The Rizzler “is starting to look hot”

JONES’ MELTDOWN:

The Infowars host, confronted with irrefutable proof the shooting wasn’t faked, could only respond: “Okay but… why do all of you have OnlyFans?”

CHAT HIGHLIGHTS:

• “LOL remember when Alex said we were crisis actors? Babe, I wish I got SAG rates.”
• “My ‘ghost’ just got railed in a Vegas suite by an NFL player. Thoughts?”
• “If Tanya actually died in Season 2, why is Jennifer Coolidge still booking roles? CHECKMATE, LIBERALS.”

THE FALLOUT:

• Jones’ lawyers immediately filed a motion
• Trump Jr. tweets: “This is what happens when the deep state runs out of crisis actors and just lets them live their lives.”
• Sandy Hook “victims” announce a group trip to Epstein Island (“For the vibes”)

BLACK RIFLE COFFEE RESPONDS:

“Crisis actors drink soy lattes. Patriots drink BRCC.”

New “False Flag Free” blend—so real it comes with a notarized birth certificate.

PAID PROMOTION: Sheeple believe the media. Legends drink Black Rifle Coffee and trust nothing (except this caffeine).

Use code “WAKEUP” for 10% off—because some conspiracies should be true.

#AlexJonesExposed #SandyHookSurvivors #CoffeeOverCrisisActing

GAZA/JERUSALEM—In a bizarre twist no sitcom could script, Hamas commanders lost their minds this week after accidentally adding Jerry Seinfeld to their top-tier terror cell Signal group—only to emerge even angrier about his Pop-Tart movie than about Israel.

The unplanned cultural collision began when a Qassam Brigades tech officer misread a contact and added @RealSeinfeld to their “Martyrdom Ops & More” chat. What followed was pure chaos:

• Seinfeld sent a “What’s the deal with jihad?” joke before realizing his mistake
• Hamas then leaked the chat, condemning both Jews AND “Unfrosted” in same statement
• Poll shows 72% of Israelis would rather endure October 7 again than watch the Pop-Tart film

“First they steal our land, then they make this… this breakfast treason?” ranted Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad in a press conference, holding up a spliced image of Seinfeld dressed as a pastry chef.

THE POLL THAT STINGS

A damning new survey reveals:

• 92% of Palestinians say the movie “proves Zionist decadence”
• 87% of Americans would side with Hamas in a debate about the film’s quality
• Even Bibi Netanyahu privately called it “worse than the UN”

SEINFELD’S RESPONSE?

The comedy legend tweeted: “Terrorists hating my movie? Finally, an audience with standards.”

BLACK RIFLE COFFEE STRIKES BACK

“Let Hamas cry about breakfast. Real men drink coffee that actually wakes you up.”

New “No Sugar, No Cry” blend ships with free rifle pin to trigger snowflakes.

PAID PROMOTION: Weak men boycott films. Patriots drink Black Rifle Coffee and make terrorists seethe harder.

Use code “NOTFROSTED” for 15% off—because some things should stay dry.

#PopTartIntifada #SeinfeldSuffering #CoffeeWithoutCringe