On Dave Sim’s 2001 Anti-Feminist Treatise

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.