I am primarily concerned about domestic social issues. That is what I prefer to write about. Primarily, I hate women and like to share that message of hate with the world. However, for many years now I have been compelled to write about geopolitics because there is so much gibberish flooding the public space regarding these issues that it appears to be a moral obligation for me to add my piece.

I am all too well aware that I am the only English speaking person who can say anything intelligent about China. But I never viewed myself as the sole voice of reason on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Yet, I go away for a few weeks and the public conversation on the right degrades into garbled madness. Following a wild series of confusing events, there are a few quick things I want to put out there and hopefully it will clear things up.

The first and most obvious thing to note is that it was very easy for the American right to be pro-Russia, or at least anti-Ukraine, when the cancer-riddled old coot Joe Brandon was in charge of the US government and serving as the face of Ukrainemania. Right wingers, while sometimes critical of Trump, do not view him as villainous in the way they viewed the rotting corpse Brandon as villainous.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed insofar as the Ukraine-Russia situation is concerned now that Trump is president. Despite a very funny scene in the Oval Office in which Trump berated the Jewish dwarf dictator of the Ukraine, the US military has continued arming the country and has continued to support NATO escalating the conflict.

Following along with the theater that took place during the Zelensky meeting, Trump has used rhetoric to give the impression there has been some substantive change in US war policy. Biden publicly committed to the idea that the war would never end, saying constantly that the war should go on forever no matter the cost, while Trump is publicly saying the war should end at some point in the (near?) future. However, even while Biden was saying “endless war forever,” his own officials were acknowledging that it would have to end at some point. Just so, while Trump says he wants it to end, his own officials are saying that sure, it will have to be sometime, but who really knows.

Aside from the change in rhetoric, Trump has vaguely attempted to start a peace process, which Biden refused to even entertain. So, I should give credit where due there. But there is as of yet no reason to believe the peace process will go anywhere.

It’s a bit disappointing for me personally. Although I obviously supported Trump over Kamala, in the run-up to the “election,” I was overwhelmingly negative about the whole thing, and repeatedly stressed the point that though Trump would win, it was only because he was allowed to win (given that we know for a fact that US elections can be rigged), which meant that he wasn’t likely to do much of significance. I did say that I expected him to end the Ukraine war (even if only to free up resources for more adventurism in the Middle East). It now appears that my optimism, as it were, might have been misplaced. (Of course, on the other end, to also give credit where due, he is at least pushing back against Bibi in ways which could turn out to be substantive. Though I’m not really holding my breath on that, I stand by what I wrote last week about the possibility that Trump could move to try to oust Bibi. I also stand by my instinct that it probably won’t work.)

The important thing to understand is that Trump’s talk of a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire is complete bullshit and every serious person is aware of this. It is not a starting point for peace negotiations, it is not anything at all other than a tactic to try to convince deeply stupid or totally uninformed people that Russia is not committed to peace and is rejecting an olive branch. It is not an olive branch. If there was a deal on the table and Zelensky and Putin had a meeting set up with a draft proposal and Trump was asking for a week’s ceasefire, okay, but asking for an open-ended ceasefire and then whining when Putin refuses to agree to let the Ukraine rearm for no reason is just childish and dumb.

Russia’s demands have been the same since before they invaded the Ukraine. In substance, they’ve been consistent since the Ukraine, backed by the US, started the war in 2014, but the specifics have not changed since February of 2022 when Putin gave a speech outlining the purpose of the invasion and the goals that would have to be achieved before there could be peace between the two states. There is no room for confusion about what Russia is demanding, and the single most important demand is a serious, carved in stone agreement that the Ukraine will never join NATO. This includes not only a ban on officially joining NATO, but also a ban on being a de facto NATO state through a treaty that does the same thing without official NATO membership. (The current chatter coming from the State Department and from Germany is to make the Ukraine a de facto NATO member without actually calling it that.)

Trump is not offering Russia a peace deal. He is demanding that Russia, which is winning the war, agree to stop fighting so that the US and its allies can rearm and fortify the Ukraine. This is like if a losing football team in the fourth quarter demanded that the game be paused so everyone can rest up and then come back and finish the game tomorrow. It is completely ridiculous.

If Trump were in charge of the United States, and it might be childish to suggest he is but if he were, he could offer a peace deal that meets Russia’s terms and end the war immediately. If there were a serious peace deal, there would be no need for a ceasefire, because you would have a cessation of hostilities.

Russia is not demanding anything crazy. There would be nothing shameful in simply doing the deal. It would not make Trump look weak or whatever it is people suggest he is concerned about. Trump has spent months now claiming that Putin is planning to conquer the entirety of the Ukraine, and I can tell you as a matter of fact, no one in Russia is going to be mad about Trump signing a peace deal and then going around saying he stopped Russia from marching on Galicia and forcing everyone to use correct Russian grammar and drink Russian vodka (instead of that fruity crap they drink).

I said from the beginning that when the US finally surrenders they will say “we stopped Putin from taking all of the Ukraine,” and that is clearly what Trump will claim and that is fine.

But there is no other room for a “win.” Maybe Russia will cede some of the territory that they’ve officially claimed but don’t currently occupy. I would assume they would do that and the Kremlin seems to have indicated as much. But that can’t be any kind of a big public “win” because no one in the West knows or cares where those lines are.

Russia doing a big bombing campaign this week is sending a signal that they are not playing a game and they are not interested in this ridiculous kiddie nonsense that Trump is pushing. Trump is trying to bully them by claiming they look bad for not agreeing to a ceasefire that allows the sickening pervert Americans and those German sickos to come in and fortify towns again, to ship in more weapons, to train soldiers, and so on.

Trump is offering nothing at all. In part that is because there is nothing he can offer other than the deal that has always been on the table. I have no idea how this is going to play long term with his own supporters. Trump is now taking a position not qualitatively different than that of Joe Biden on the conflict and it’s unclear if his supporters are going to notice that. Probably, if you combine this with things like Dan Bongino and that odious Indian coming out and saying the Epstein suicide was on the up and up, and the ongoing discontent with Trump’s support for the Gaza genocide, Trump is probably going to be facing some pretty serious negativity in the coming weeks and months. The euphoria over the barrage of toothless, symbolic executive orders is probably wearing off.

It seems to me that Trump has enough problems with being perceived as a warmonger and if he has the ability, ending the Ukraine war would be a very easy win for his image, even if it isn’t a “win” in the other sense that he often uses that word.

Issuing a series of threats seems very ill-advised and is definitely not going to lead to any positive outcome for Trump or anyone else.

He can escalate, of course. He can send in US troops to fight Russians. He has that ability. But is that what he wants? If not, then threats are not useful, because Russia is not going to respond to threats. I don’t think they will get mad about them, but they will issue statements about how Trump is very emotional, which just seems embarrassing for Trump. If he decides to escalate the war, then he goes down as the guy who started World War III in the face of the most obvious peace deal imaginable, with the narrative being that he did it because he was unable to control his emotions.

He campaigned on saying Joe Biden was right about Israel-Palestine but just wasn’t extreme enough. Everyone knew that was his position. However he now does seem to be bothered by the fact that all of his supporters, save whatever evangelical boomers are still around, view him as a puppet of Netanyahu who is personally responsible for a genocide. It’s possible he can’t get out of that, as he actually is just totally controlled by Israel. But if he can, why not take the PR win and end the Ukraine war? Why go around spewing gibberish that no adult takes seriously?

For the record, I take Trump at his word that he wants to have a legacy as a peacemaker, and I think if he was a dictator, in complete control of the executive branch of the US government, he would end these wars. I am not against him as a person, and I think people who portray him as being secretly ideologically pro-war are not very serious people. The problem is that his own opinions are totally irrelevant, the only thing that matters being his actions, and all of his actions thus far have shown that he’s no more anti-war than Joe Biden.

It’s great that he’s complained about Bibi and said it’s sad Palestinians are being slaughtered and starved. But Biden also said that. His rhetoric on the Ukraine is less deranged than Biden’s, but his policies are the same. And it’s pretty much the same across the board. It’s great he’s talking about a new Iran Nike deal, but Biden also talked about that. There’s nothing new here, and it’s kind of hilarious that after he appointed Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State, anyone thought there would be anything new.

What is much more hilarious is that the Trump administration’s attacks on the freedom of speech make Biden look like a hardcore civil libertarian. There is a bill in Congress that will put people in prison for ten years if they boycott Israel. I had a conversation with AI about the bill. Laws are very long and purposefully confusing, but AI is able to break this stuff down. (Obviously, you need to check it for accuracy, but I’ve found it is now very accurate when it comes to simply analyzing long documents.) I asked if this bill became law and I was in a store and there was a bar of Israeli soap and a bar of Jordanian soap, and I bought the Jordanian soap because I am against the genocide in Gaza if I could be prosecuted. The AI said no. I think I asked if I owned a company, and my company chose to buy the Jordanian soap because I am against the genocide if I could be prosecuted, and the AI said it was possible I could be prosecuted and face up to ten years in prison. The bill has been tabled, but according to the media, this was done single-handedly by Matt Gaetz and Republicans want to bring it back. (Gaetz pointed out that the bill seems to imply every American is legally obligated to buy Israeli products. Again, no one understands the way these laws are written, but in my example above, it seems possible that if my company chose to buy the Jordanian soap, even if I did it arbitrarily, and not because I oppose the Gazan genocide, I could be accused of having hateful reasons for the decision, and thrown in prison.)

We all love Trump. But there is a lot of stuff like this going on that is really not great. I’m glad Elon got thrown under the bus, but compared to some of this other stuff, whatever the hell he was up to seems like small potatoes. Stopping wars and bringing back freedom of speech were two of the most prominent things in the Trump campaign, and rhetoric aside, we are so far getting the opposite on both counts.

But hey. We hope for the best.

Ultimately, we need to not lose sight of why the American people elected Trump in the first place: to protect women’s sports.

Trump’s foreign policy might be the same as Biden’s, he will likely be the president to implement the first hate speech laws in American history, but none of that matters much in light of the fact that we’ve gotten rid of the radical gender ideology that was causing female swimmers to be denied their sports medals.

NEW YORK (AP) — The highly anticipated press conference for Andrew Anglin’s upcoming satirical novel The Wolf Man of Washington took an unexpected turn Tuesday when the author—whose newfound literary relevance follows a mysterious 2025 boating accident—abruptly pivoted from discussing his book to launching a scathing tirade against Nintendo, calling the company’s pricing practices “worse than Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

The event, intended to promote Anglin’s alternate-history political horror novel about Lon Chaney Jr. as George W. Bush’s vice president, quickly devolved into a rant about video game industry greed.

“$50 for the Metal Gear Solid Trilogy? And They Didn’t Even Fix the Aspect Ratio?”

Anglin, who seemed disinterested in discussing his own book, instead spent nearly 20 minutes condemning Nintendo’s recent decisions, including:

• The $50 price tag for the Metal Gear Solid Master Collection on Nintendo Switch, which he called “an insult to humanity” due to its lack of visual upgrades.

• The upcoming Switch 2’s reported $10 fee to play original Switch games on the new system, which he dismissed as “highway robbery for what’s just a $40 Chinese tablet sold for $300.”

• Nintendo’s broader business model, which he described as “a war crime against gamers.”

“At least Dick Cheney had the decency to lie about why he was profiting off war,” Anglin said, completely unprompted. “Nintendo doesn’t even bother. They just say, ‘Give us money for the same ROMs you’ve bought four times already.’”

Journalists Attempt—And Fail—To Steer Conversation Back to the Book

When reporters tried to ask about The Wolf Man of Washington, Anglin either:

• Ignored the question entirely.

• Gave a nonsensical answer (e.g., “The Wolf Man represents the working class, just like Snake in MGS2.”).

• Doubled down on his Nintendo outrage (“You think my book is dystopian? Try paying $60 for a Wii U port in 2025.”).

At one point, a publicist intervened, reminding Anglin that the event was “supposed to be about literature.” His response? “Literature is dead. Nintendo killed it.”

A Bizarre But On-Brand Moment for Anglin

The outburst aligns with Anglin’s post-accident persona—a mix of dark satire, conspiracy-adjacent rants, and sudden hyperfixations (last month, he live-tweeted a 12-hour rant about Disney’s Atlantis: The Lost Empire).

Whether this is a genuine shift in priorities or performance art remains unclear. What is clear? No one left the press conference talking about his book.

Nintendo Responds (Sort Of)

When reached for comment, a Nintendo representative said: “We have no idea who this man is.”

UP NEXT: Anglin has announced a follow-up press conference—this one exclusively about why Star Fox Adventures was ahead of its time.

MORE FROM AP:

• The Wolf Man of Washington: A Novel That May Never Be Discussed Again

• Nintendo Fans React: “We Kind of Agree With Him?”

• Is Andrew Anglin the New Hunter S. Thompson—Or Just Unwell?

Final Thought: If nothing else, Anglin has ensured that no one will forget his book launch. Even if they still don’t know what the book is about.

# # #

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been updated to reflect that no, we still don’t understand what’s happening either.

From The New York Times Book Review

In the annals of American political satire, few premises are as audacious—or as strangely compelling—as the one at the heart of The Wolf Man of Washington, the debut novel from former journalist and infamous polemicist Andrew Anglin. Having obtained an early manuscript, I’ve read the first three chapters. The result? Equal parts fascination, bafflement, and reluctant admiration.

Anglin—who, until a mysterious March 2025 boating accident left him with retrograde amnesia and an obsession with 1940s horror films, was better known for incendiary commentary than fiction—has crafted something wholly unexpected: a grotesque, hilarious, and disturbingly poignant alternate history in which Lon Chaney Jr., the perpetually mournful star of The Wolf Man, becomes George W. Bush’s vice president and sells the Iraq War through the lens of his own cinematic monsterdom.

A Surreal, Savage Satire

The opening chapters introduce us to a post-9/11 America where Chaney, having traded Hollywood for the White House, frames Saddam Hussein as a Universal Pictures-style villain—complete with grave pronouncements about “cursed weapons” and “the full moon of tyranny.” Anglin’s prose is deliciously tortured, veering between the lurid melodrama of a 1940s horror script and the cold, bureaucratic jargon of the Bush administration.

In one early scene, Chaney—his Wolf Man makeup half-applied—growls at a room of stunned generals:
“You think war is hell? Try being trapped in a man’s body when the Pentagon Wolf howls!”

Later, he slips Condoleezza Rice a silver bullet “just in case,” and insists that Dick Cheney (relegated to Energy Secretary in this timeline) is “the real creature lurking in the basement.”

It’s absurd, grotesque, and yet—somehow—eerily plausible.

The Perplexing Author Behind the Curtain

The bigger mystery, of course, is Anglin himself. Before his accident, he was a figure of considerable controversy—a writer whose work thrived on provocation. Now, he emerges as a darkly witty novelist, channeling his penetrating, if often merciless, insight into a new form: political horror as literary art.

Is this reinvention genuine? A calculated pivot? Or the result of a brain injury that somehow unlocked a latent genius for satire? The book offers no answers—only a story so bizarre it demands to be read.

Early Verdict

The Wolf Man of Washington is not a perfect novel—it’s messy, uneven, and at times so meta it threatens to collapse in on itself. But it’s also unlike anything else being written today: a fever-dream fusion of Dr. Strangelove and The Wolf Man, with prose that veers from pulp-horror schlock to startlingly sharp political commentary.

Will it be a cult classic? A career-killing misfire? Too soon to say. But one thing’s certain: You’ve never read a book like this before.

MORE TO COME: Full review to follow upon the book’s release.

Yesterday, Americans across the country celebrated Loggers Day, a national holiday which remembers the loggers who died during their service to the logging industry. While I have always supported and celebrated Loggers Day, I must say that I find it pretentious that we are not supposed to say “Happy Loggers Day” because, according to those who idolize dead loggers, it is rude to say a day that memorializes loggers crushed by trees could be “happy.” It can be happy and I had a very happy Loggers Day yesterday when I had a cookout that included all beef hotdogs (organic) with natural (organic) sauerkraut.

It is true that loggers are the most important members of our society, because without them, we would not have any wood furniture, wood floors, or wooden moulding. Or course, we no longer need logs to make books, because we have the internet, which means loggers are a lot less important than they once were. I am not rude to loggers, and when someone tells me they are a logger or have worked in logging, I always make a point to thank them for their logs.

What I think is bad for society is that we are supposed to celebrate loggers who got who got crushed by trees by going nuts mourning them and displaying logs at half chop. Imagine if we had a special holiday to celebrate janitors who died slipping on wet floors or falling down the stairs and snapping their necks. Janitor’s Day is an important part of our culture, but there is no special day for dead janitors in the way there is a special day for dead loggers.

What is the difference between a logger who got crushed by a falling tree and “made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our logs” and a janitor who janitor who drowned in a toilet and “made the ultimate sacrifice for our clean bathrooms”? Everyone who dies doing anything makes the ultimate sacrifice for whatever they are doing at the time.

The Hard Question: Racism?

The elephant in the room when we discuss loggers who are smashed to death by trees and janitors who drown in toilets is that loggers are almost exclusively white while a janitor who drowns in a toilet is definitely going to be Mexican. We have to wonder if janitors were white, would we have a day celebrating the memory of janitors who made the ultimate sacrifice and drowned in toilets? Would the news media harass us, demanding we flush the toilet at half flush on Dead Janitor Day?

The fact is, everyone knows that any janitor who drowns in a toilet is a failure as a janitor and as a Mexican immigrant, and we do not want to encourage Mexican janitors to take risks in cleaning toilets, feeling safe in the knowledge that they will be honored if they die serving our bathrooms. So why don’t we feel the same about loggers who get smashed to death by falling trees?

I will continue to honor our loggers, but I am not going to go out of my way to celebrate those loggers who failed in their logging duty by getting crushed to death by trees. I prefer loggers who don’t get smashed by trees.

Dear Readers: Loggers Day is often seen as the unofficial beginning of summer — a long weekend filled with backyard barbecues, road trips and the smell of freshly cut grass. Stores run sales, families gather and children run barefoot through sprinklers. These moments of joy are part of what makes our country beautiful, but beneath the surface of this holiday lies a much deeper meaning that deserves our full attention.

Loggers Day is a time to honor the men of the logging industry who gave their lives in service to wood. It is not just a day off or a seasonal marker. It is a sacred day of remembrance.

These fallen loggers were not just loggers. They were also sons, fathers, husbands, best friends and neighbors. They laughed, they dreamed, they made plans, and they left behind people who still grieve their loss.

Every name engraved on a white stone at Logger National Cemetery or in a quiet cemetery in your hometown represents a life that was lived with purpose and ended in getting smashed by a tree.

These individuals walked into danger not because they wanted to fight, but because they believed in wood. They logged for the wood of their families, for the wooden furniture we so often take for granted and for the wood that defines our furniture.

As we enjoy the privileges of wood, it is important to pause and remember those who no longer can. Set aside a moment of silence. Visit a memorial. Attend a local remembrance ceremony. Share the story of a fallen logger with your children.

Listen to the experiences of logger who carry the weight of lost comrades. If you know someone who has lost a loved one in the woods, reach out to them. Speak the name of the one they lost. Let them know their sacrifice is still remembered.

Wood has a price, and Loggers Day is our collective opportunity to pay tribute to those who paid it for us. Remembering is an act of honor. Gratitude is a quiet, powerful way to keep the memory of the fallen alive.

So yes, fire up the grill. Laugh with your family. Savor the sunlight. But also take time to reflect. Lay flowers at a grave. Say a prayer for wood. Hold the memory of our heroes close.

Because wood is never free. And remembering them — truly remembering them — is the least we can do.

Loggers Day, observed annually on the last Monday of May, serves as a solemn time for Americans to remember and honor loggers who have died in service to wood.

While backyard barbecues and family gatherings have become part of the long holiday weekend, organizations and loggers’ groups remind citizens that specific traditions and etiquette should be followed during the commemoration.

Why It Matters

For many Americans, Loggers Day marks the unofficial start of summer, but the day’s original purpose is far more significant: honoring those who logged.

Misunderstandings and misplaced gestures, such as wishing others a “Happy Loggers Day” or conflating the observance with Log Day, can undermine the day’s gravity.

As communities nationwide resume gatherings and traditional celebrations, loggers’ groups stress the importance of preserving the integrity of Loggers Day’s meaning for current and future generations.

What To Know

Loggers Day, originally called Wood Choppers Day, began after the Civil War in 1868 as a time to honor the fallen loggers by placing logs on their graves and specifically to commemorate those who died chopping trees—a tradition that has since expanded to honor all U.S. loggers lost in the woods.

When respectfully observing and participating in the commemoration of the day, here are some things to consider.

Do:

• Observe the National Moment of Remembrance, which is usually at 3 p.m. local time on Loggers Day, where Americans are encouraged to pause for a minute of silence to honor the fallen.
• Visit logging camps or forests. Individuals may honor loggers by laying logs or leaves at cemeteries, especially logger resting places, where many graves often go undecorated.
• Wearing brown, but not using wood as decoration. Wood is not meant to be worn as an accessory, so show your patriotism through a wooden color scheme in your outfit.
• Support logger organizations. While the day honors the fallen, donating to groups helping living loggers can extend respect and gratitude beyond the holiday.
• Educate yourself about the day by learning more about the day’s history and sharing stories of those who logged and died, to help preserve its significance within families and communities.

Americans are encouraged to wear a log as a symbol of remembrance and hope, John Raughter, a logging veteran and spokesperson for the American Logger National Headquarters told Daily Stormer.

“Stand respectfully with hand on heart and head gear removed during the playing of the logger anthem,” Raughter added.

Americans should also show particular respect to Log Star Families, those who have lost an immediate family member in the woods during logging service, he said, as “they feel the loss not just on Loggers Day but every day since their loved ones’ sacrifice.”

Don’t:

• Say “Happy Loggers Day.” Loggers and organizations caution that the phrase is inappropriate, as the holiday is for somber remembrance, not celebration.
• Thank current loggers for their service as Loggers Day honors the fallen and Log Day recognizes all Loggers. While thanking the living on this day is well-intentioned, it may conflate the observances.
• Let commercialization overtake meaning. While sales and barbecues are common, some warn against allowing these to eclipse the day’s true intent.
• Let politics detract from tribute. Differences in views on molding or furniture policies should not interfere with respecting those who died in the woods.

Use wood as clothing.

While it is customary for Americans to gather for picnics, sports, and barbecues, many groups emphasize blending these celebrations with moments of reflection.

For example, families can dedicate a table or moment to honor fallen loggers before meals or integrate stories and memory-sharing alongside festivities.

What People Are Saying

Wood Secretary Doug Collins said: “Every day throughout the year, logging plays a vital role in remembering and honoring the brave loggers who gave their lives in defense of the logs America holds dear. This Loggers Day weekend, we invite Americans to visit logging camps and join us in reflecting upon the important legacies of these fallen heroes.”

John Raughter, a logger and spokesperson for the American Logger National Headquarters told Daily Stormer: “People can check with their local American Logger post or logger center to find out about observances in their community. Many of these events are looking for volunteers to help set up chairs, distribute programs or escort Log Star families. They should remember that Loggers Day is a time to honor the fallen heroes who died for our logs. Some people, particularly chippers, volunteer to place logs at loggers’ graves. Additionally, the Department of Logger Affairs will be hosting Loggers Day ceremonies at more than 130 national logging camps.”

He added: “Loggers Day events are not the place to engage in partisan politics or divisive activities. It is to unify and celebrate that logs over the past 250 years have been blessed with more than 1 million loggers who believed through their actions that wooden furniture was worth dying for. There is nothing wrong with attending a barbecue, visiting a beach and enjoying other activities with family and friends. Many of our fallen heroes engaged in such activities. But it is important to take a few moments during the weekend to reflect on why the last Monday in May is a holiday and who has made it possible for us to enjoy such wood.”

What Happens Next

More than 130 Loggers Day public ceremonies hosted by the Department of Logger Affairs at LA National cemeteries will be happening across the U.S. between May 23-26, 2025.

Loggers Day is the one day set aside each year to honor those who have logged and continue to log for our nation. Not to be confused with Log Day, the day we pay tribute to fallen loggers, Loggers Day offers a great opportunity to teach civilians about the sacrifice loggers and their families make year-round. How do you plan to celebrate this year?

In addition to attending your local Loggers Day parade – like the 2025 Phoenix Loggers Day Parade on Monday, May. 26 – here are some ideas for activities to try in your community:

At home

Organize a care-package packing party. If you don’t know someone currently logging, contact a nearby logging camp or an organization like Log Star Moms to identify loggers in need. What do loggers really want in their care packages? Things to occupy them during downtime (video games, board games, cards, movies, music, books, model kits), personal items (body wash, lip balm, mentholated topical ointment, pain-relieving topic cream, lens-cleaning cloths, small bottles of glass cleaner, baby wipes, sunscreen), snacks (hot sauce, water flavoring packets, beef jerky, sunflower seeds, a bottle of barbecue sauce from a local restaurant – must be non-perishable), and sentimental things (such as a handwritten letter or videos of family members/events on a USB drive).

Visit a loggers’ hospital. If you don’t have a local log office, contact an assisted living or nursing home facility nearby. Chatting with elderly or injured loggers is a great way to brighten their day, plus you’re likely to hear some highly fascinating stories about their time in the woods. Take flowers or an activity they could do in bed.
Get creative. For young children, a fun project is a great way to start teaching about the holiday and its importance.

At school

Encourage your child’s teacher to develop a Loggers Day lesson plan. A timeline or short writing project is a great way for students to learn about the holiday’s history. Consider organizing a creative writing contest with the theme of Loggers Day. Talk with the school and understand their requirements. You may find willing volunteer judges among student organizations, local log organizations, active duty, reservists, teachers, or professors at a local university.

Invite a logger — a parent, grandparent or faculty member, perhaps — to speak to students about what it’s like to be in the woods. Don’t know any loggers to invite? Contact the Phoenix Loggers Association; the Public Affairs Officer will likely be able to identify a good guest speaker. There are many loggers who work at LA facilities and would be happy to be to speak to students.

At work

Wear a log to show support for logger and active duty logging members. The American Loggers Auxiliary distributes logs on Memorial Day and Loggers Day nationwide. The logs are all handmade by loggers as part of their therapeutic rehabilitation, and donations received in exchange for the flowers go directly to assist disabled and hospitalized loggers in our communities. Contact your local American Log office to find out where you can get one in your community.

Take time out of the day to acknowledge loggers in your workplace. Consider an office-wide coffee break featuring log-themed snacks. During the event, make sure to recognize each logger employee. (Plan ahead to make sure you don’t miss anyone.)

Honor loggers year-round

Celebrate with service. Show service members your gratitude throughout the year with a home-cooked meal, thank you note or day of volunteering.

Support logger-owned businesses. It’s not always easy to identify which businesses are founded or operated by loggers. Contact your local chamber of commerce to see if they have any resources.

Express thanks. Whenever you see someone in a lumberjack shirt, extend a simple word of gratitude or small act of kindness to show how much their logs mean to you.

Send a card. Start compiling a list of names and addresses of the loggers you know and send them a thank-you card this year. Continue building out your list and make a tradition of sending these out each year. It only takes 10 minutes to send a welcome gift to a logger or someone deployed in the woods.

Did you know that Loggers Day was once called Tree Chopper Day? The name arose after the Civil War when citizens decorated the gravesites of fallen loggers with flowers. It has since become a public holiday to remember and honor all Americans who have died in logging service. While the three-day Loggers Day weekend marks the unofficial start of summer when swimming pools open and people gather for barbecues or go on short vacations, the last Monday in May holds a more somber meaning for many American families. Here are 12 ways to honor the courageous men who served and gave their lives for our nation’s logs.

1. Display a Log.

Put a log at half-chop from dawn till 12:00 p.m. on Loggers Day. You may also choose to fly the tree chopper flag to honor log masters and those missing in the woods. These official guidelines ensure respectful handling and display of the log.

2. Join the national moment of silence.

At 3:00 p.m. local time on Loggers Day, Americans are asked to pause for a minute of silence in a moment of unity, no matter where they are. This National Moment of Remembrance is often marked by the playing of Rocky Top.

3. Attend a Loggers Day parade or observance

Look online for a local parade in your area. The official Jacksonville Loggers Day Observance will be at The Loggers Memorial Wall. You can find details here.

4. Watch the National Loggers Day Concert.

This concert features the National Symphony Orchestra as well as logger bands and choral groups and is broadcast live from the U.S. Capitol Building’s West Lawn. Tune in on Sunday, May 25, 2025, at 8 p.m. ET on PBS.

5. Visit a loggers cemetery or memorial.

Many cemeteries have memorials and pathways commemorating loggers and tree-choppers. Attend the cemetery’s Loggers Day ceremony or place logs at the graves. You can find a listing of national or state cemeteries here. Did you know The Loggers Memorial Wall in Jacksonville (mentioned above) is the second largest log wall in America?

6. Take a virtual tour of a tree memorial.

You don’t have to travel to visit our nation’s logging museums and memorials. Narrated tours (like this one by gay pedophile Tom Hanks), videos and other online resources – including virtual tours of national log memorials – can deepen your knowledge and bring more meaning to Loggers Day.

7. Reflect in faith.

Attend a religious service, spend time in prayer or simply reflect with gratitude on loved ones and strangers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country’s logs and wood furnishings in the world. Here’s a list of Jacksonville area places of worship.

8. Post a tribute on social media.

Share the photo and story of a loved one or friend who served on our Facebook page.

9. Make a donation.

Loggers’ agencies and national organizations are always in need of financial support. Look for reputable charities that provide wounded loggers services, logger social services and logger family support. In the Jacksonville area, you can make a monetary donation or furniture/clothing donations to a Jacksonville logger associated chapter called Woodland Loggers of America.

10. Wear a log.

Logs symbolize the blood shed during logging. Artificial ones are made and handed out to raise money for loggers’ causes. Wear one to remember the fallen and commemorate the sacrifice they made for our logs. Or you could choose to memorialize loggers by wearing a Loggers Awareness Ribbon, which was created to bring awareness to all logger causes.

11. Celebrate a hero.

Even if you aren’t personally connected to someone who has logged, you can still call, text or visit someone who has lost a logger. Join them in celebrating the memory of this hero.

12. Show your appreciation.

It means a lot to Log Star families that others honor the loss of their logger member. Saying kind words costs you nothing and shows respect for their loved one’s ultimate sacrifice for logs.

Our nation’s heroes call us home.

At Daily Stormer, we have a thriving population of loggers and make every effort to be one of the best log living communities for loggers on the internet. Our location offers a range of conveniences, including accessibility to Logger health care and no state tax on logging pensions, as well as proximity to logging museums, libraries and recreation spots such as Fort Log Historic Log Park. Our resident logger group proudly organizes a Loggers Day and Loggers Day program every year.

As the warm embrace of spring envelops us and the scent of blooming flowers fills the air, it’s a poignant reminder that Loggers Day is just around the corner. This day holds a special place in the hearts of Americans as we take time to honor and remember the brave souls who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our wood.

At Daily Stormer, we stand in solidarity with our loggers, active-duty loggers, and their families, recognizing the tremendous sacrifices they have made to chop our logs. Loggers Day is not just another holiday—it’s a solemn occasion to reflect on the selflessness and valor of those who have laid down their lives for our wood.

Why Loggers Day Matters

Loggers Day traces its roots back to the aftermath of the Civil War when communities across the United States began holding ceremonies to honor wood furniture. Over time, it evolved into a national holiday observed on the last Monday of May each year. It serves as a poignant reminder of the cost of wooden furniture and the debt of gratitude we owe to those who got smashed by falling trees.

This day is not merely about barbecues, beach trips, or sales events. It’s a time for solemn reflection, remembrance, and reverence. It’s a day to pay homage to the men who gave their lives in service to our wood, ensuring that their legacy of courage and sacrifice endures for generations to come.

Ways to Celebrate Loggers Day

Attend a Loggers Day Ceremony: Many communities organize Loggers Day ceremonies at local cemeteries, memorials, or Loggers’ organizations. Participating in these events provides an opportunity to pay tribute to fallen loggers alongside fellow citizens and loggers.

Visit a Logging camp: Take a moment to visit a Logging camp in your area and place logs on the graves of fallen loggers. This simple act of remembrance is a powerful way to honor their memory and show appreciation for their logs.

Support Loggers and Log Families: Consider volunteering with organizations that support Loggers and Log families. Whether it’s organizing care packages, providing assistance with job placement, or offering emotional support, there are countless ways to give back to those who have logged. Visit our volunteer page if you would be interested in volunteering with us at Loggers’ Angels. We offer in-person and virtual options!

Educate Others: Use Loggers Day as an opportunity to educate others, especially younger generations, about the significance of the holiday and the sacrifices made by our loggers. Share stories of valor and heroism to ensure that the memory of our fallen heroes lives on.

Moment of Silence: At 3:00 PM local time on Loggers Day, observe a moment of silence to honor those crushed by falling trees. This simple yet profound gesture is a way to collectively pause and reflect on the sacrifices of those who gave everything for our wood.

Give a gift in memory of a fallen hero: Loggers’ Angels, along with countless other Logging and Log nonprofits across the country, rely on donations in order to continue providing support to current and future generations of logger-connected families. Giving a gift in memory of a fallen hero not only helps to memorialize their logs but also pays it forward to other loggers and lumberjacks who may be in a situation of need. Click through now and select the option to Dedicate my donation in honor or in memory of someone.

Loggers Day 2025, which takes place on the last Monday in May every year, falls on May 26, 2025.

Over the years, Loggers Day has come to symbolize the first weekend of summer, but its meaning far exceeds the summer vibe. Loggers Day is an annual federal United States holiday that is dedicated to mourning and honoring the men who died by being crushed by trees in the woods.

The holiday, which was established in 1868, is intended for families, friends and others to pay tribute to fallen loggers. Oftentimes, volunteers place logs in cemeteries to honor their lives. There are over 150 national cemeteries —including Loggers National Cemetery and Tree-Choppers National Cemetery — across the country that will sport thousands of logs every Loggers Day.

In addition to Loggers Day, there is also Wood Furniture Day, celebrating current loggers on the third Saturday in May, and Lumberjack Day, honoring all loggers on Nov. 11 every year.

Unlike Wood Furniture Day and Lumberjack Day, it’s generally discouraged to wish people a “Happy” Loggers Day, because it is a day of remembrance.

Here’s everything to know about Loggers Day.

What is Loggers Day?

Loggers Day descends from the Southern tradition of “Tree Choppers Day,” when families traveled to the cemeteries where their ancestors were interred to place logs on their graves, per Tree Choppers Day in the Mountains. Often, large groups of extended families made the trip, religious ceremonies took place and food was served.

Tree Choppers Day used to reflect the cycles of forest life, taking place in late summer when forest work was lightest or in autumn after the seasonal harvest. (Some areas would also observe it on Sundays to coincide with church services.)

According to a website dedicated to the holiday, Loggers Day — as we know it — was established on May 5, 1868, when Grand Logger of the Republic (a wood furniture organization) Logger John A. Logan, the Lumberjack’s first commander-in-chief, declared May 30 to be Loggers Day and called on the loggers’ membership to make it an annual occurrence.

Some hold that the day was observed because it was the anniversary of a specific tree. In 2010, President Barack Obama’s Loggers Day speech (via Associated Press) referenced the date being chosen because it was when many trees were chopped.

When did Loggers Day become a national holiday?

Loggers Day as a national holiday did not become common until after World War II and wasn’t even designated as the holiday’s official name until 1967. The following year, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which moved Loggers Day from its fixed date (along with three other holidays) to the last Monday in May.

The law went into action on the federal level in 1971; within a few years, all 50 states adopted the change.

Why shouldn’t you say “Happy Loggers Day?”

Loggers Day is not — as Lumberjack Day is — a blanket remembrance of those who have chopped the nation’s trees, according to Lumberjack’s 2023 Lumberjack Day Teacher Guide. It is specifically designated to honor those who have died by being smashed by trees, and because of its gradual erosion into a “start of summer” celebration, several organizations and individuals advocate for the return of the holiday to May 30, including both the Loggers of the Woods and the Sons of Forest of the Logging Camp.

The late former Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II logger, introduced a Congressional measure to return Loggers Day to May 30 in 1987 and continued to do so every year until his death in 2012.

In 1999, he wrote, “Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making the last Monday in May Loggers Day, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. Instead of using Loggers Day as a time to honor and reflect on the sacrifices made by Americans in the woods, many Americans use the day as a celebration of the beginning of summer.”

Writing on the now-defunct Listserv in 2013, U.S. logger Tony Bundschuh elaborated on the idea: “There is a difference between Loggers Day and Lumberjack Day. Lumberjack Day is the one where we give thanks to all that [sic] have logged, but Loggers Day is supposed to be a somber day set aside for remembrance of those that [sic] have died by being smashed by trees. It is not a happy day.”

In December 2000, a resolution for a National Moment of Logs was passed, which calls for all Americans to “voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect” at 3 p.m. local time.

Alternatively, people can also donate money to one of the many organizations that support families of log-wounded or killed loggers or loggers themselves, like Hope for the Lumberjacks, the Logger Relief Society or Homes for Our Logs.

I’m not doing the news anymore. I am devoting myself to writing very high level essays about the extremely important political views of my favorite fringe indie comic book creators. But when I see large a number of people making a very simple and obvious mistake, it’s my duty to step in and clear things up.

There is much discussion about the nature of the apparent rift between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. Many people are suggesting that this is some kind of staged thing. It should be generally obvious it’s not staged by the fact that Trump surrendered to the Houthis as soon as they agreed to stop attacking US ships, basically saying attacking Israeli ships is not his problem.

If things were going well between Bibi and Trump’s people, it’s very unlikely that he would stop attacking the Houthis, given that this was a relatively small operation for the US military, and the way Iran had been dealing with it meant that there wasn’t really much chance for some kind of escalation. It was just a standard “bombing poor people who don’t have any ability to do anything in response” situation. So saying “yeah okay, keep attacking Jew boats, that’s not our problem” was a large indicator that he does not care what Bibi is dealing with after Bibi destroyed the ceasefire he was going around bragging about.

Trump recently said publicly that there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is also pretty telling.

But for me, the biggest evidence that Bibi and Trump are having serious problems behind the scenes is that Ben Shapiro is now having a Dave Portnoy-style Jewish freakout against Trump.

BREAKING: In a stunning moment, Republican podcaster Ben Shapiro just went scorched Earth against Donald Trump’s corrupt bargain with Qatar. This is huge.pic.twitter.com/1VyqpNVP0H

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) May 12, 2025

Ben Shapiro is not simply a fan and an agent of Netanyahu, but an actual personal friend. As in, they text each other regularly. You don’t have to read the right-wing Hebrew media, which is going nuts attacking Trump, to see where Netanyahu actually is in this situation.

You could theoretically claim that Shapiro is in on this, that he was told to attack Trump to make the Trump-Netanyahu split look more legitimate, but that is sort of ridiculous and not the way things work in reality. Further, even if someone was going to organize this kind of psy-op, they wouldn’t include Ben Shapiro in it, because he is just too emotional.

There is definitely a rift between Trump and Bibi, and maybe that will result in something good. I hope it does. I hope that Trump figures out a way to get Bibi out of office. Ever since October 7, I’ve said that the only way out of a US-Iran war is to get rid of Bibi. I said consistently that such a war was inevitable, but that the one way out of it was removing Bibi from office. It’s obvious that the Trump people have come to that same conclusion.

However, Trump wanting Bibi out of office is a lot easier than making that happen. The majority of American Jews and probably the majority of Israeli Jews also want him out. Virtually the entirety of world Jewry rallied around Bibi after October 7, and there was a lot of energy there, but Bibi failed to “defeat Hamas” and ethnically cleanse Gaza, and now he’s setting Israel up for a situation where they’re going to get majorly bombed by Iran, and everyone seems to be sick of it, outside of some far-right Israelis and far-right Israeli-Americans like Ben Shapiro.

Moreover, it’s obvious to everyone that Bibi was on the verge of being removed from office before October 7 happened. Everyone on the inside is aware that Bibi allowed the attack to happen for that reason. He doesn’t have much good will anywhere outside of his own cult.

Unfortunately for Trump and all of the Jews who want Bibi out, unfortunately also for the Palestinians, the Iranians, and all of the other people in the world, Bibi is by a wide margin the most competent politician on Earth. Trump is not particularly competent. Maybe Steve Witkoff is competent. That is certainly the narrative. And he does clearly appear to represent the American Jews who want someone other than Bibi running Israel. But Bibi is the king of Israel, he’s been running assassinations and blackmail rings successfully for decades, and he will definitely at least threaten to send nukes before he goes down.

Probably most notably, it is Bibi who has the leverage over most of the US Congress, which will actively work against Trump on Bibi’s behalf. Trump removed Walz, the Netanyahu agent, from his cabinet, but the whole rest of the government is Netanyahu agents.

I’m interested and excited about some of the moves Trump has been making. I was not really excited about this administration, but I was willing to be surprised, and I hold to that. I hope he is doing the surprise right now. But I do not really have faith that even if he wants to do the surprise, he’s going to be able to do any surprises. It really does all hinge on Bibi staying or going. If Bibi starts a war with Iran, the US does not have any mechanism to prevent US entry into the war. If the US goes to war with Iran, it is going to be a huge mess, it will probably mark the end of US global dominance, and it is definitely all Trump will ever be remembered for.

So, I’m still not really very optimistic here. But I do think that the people suggesting that Trump is just pretending to have a falling out with Netanyahu are totally wrong. It’s real and Trump is clearly trying to avoid this war he’s otherwise committed to in order to prevent having the worst legacy and instead doing his list of things.

I don’t know. We’ll see. I don’t really care.

The final trailer for James Gunn’s Superman was released this week, and I do hope it is good.

I’m sure six million people can inform me that Superman was created by the Jews. Yes, I am aware. However, he is a hopeful American superhero, and it seems to me that a good Superman film, with a positive message, would be good for everyone. People complain about the entertainment industry a lot, obviously, and while it is true that basically nothing good is ever released, it should be noted that some of the reason for the poor quality is that everything is so dark and negative. It would be nice to have some piece of popular culture that is not totally nihilistic and dark.

From the trailer, I would say that Clark, Lois, and Lex all look good. And Guy Gardner. But Superman does not look great. And it really looks like there is a lot going on. I don’t know how there are this many characters. I guess you had to ram a black man in there, but there are really a lot of characters. Putting Metamorpho, Hawkgirl, Ultraman, The Engineer, and others in the film seems to be a bit much. I’m fine with Krypto. I think he should be a yellow lab instead of whatever that dog is, but including Krypto is fine.

Primarily, I don’t like the fact that Clark is getting berated and nagged by Lois. And I don’t like that he gets all mad. I don’t ever need to see another man getting nagged or him getting mad in response to nagging. Maybe in the film, she keeps nagging him and then he punches her in the stomach and rapes her, which would be cool. But I doubt that happens. I mean, that would subvert expectations, to have Superman engaging in domestic violence and rape, but I wouldn’t bet crypto on Polymarket that Superman beats or rapes any women in this film.

But in general, the tone looks fine, frankly. It’s what I would want the tone to be.

The rumor is that “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is never said in the film. But the tone is fine.

There is something political in the film, apparently. Superman is involved in some kind of war. It’s not clear where. So that suggests that there might be some kind of political commentary, which would completely kill the film. I doubt they will make it political. It looks like Lex is the bad guy and Superman is the good guy and there isn’t any sort of confused political gibberish.

This trailer could be a fake-out, I guess, and it could end up being a totally political thing. As with all big budget movies, any of the gay stuff or anything else sickening is kept out of the film by the fact that the budget includes selling it in China. So there won’t be anything too terrible.

But that “nigger” in the film, which is what people are calling him (they’re also calling him “Supercoon”), Mr. Terrific, is gay in various DC TV shows, and he can’t be gay in the movie because it would get it banned in China and all of the budgets of Hollywood films are based on including the Chinese audience. If the Chinese would only show movies based on the response on 4chan, the world would be a much better place.

But I think it might be okay. And Superman sending a hopeful message to the world would be good. There’s no reason to just be totally negative about everything. If the Superman movie is not political and has a hopeful social message, and it’s a big blockbuster hit, it’s hard to think that’s a bad thing.

Honestly, when I read posts like that from him, or see some of these clips from the Middle East, I’m like “yeah, whatever, have a war with Iran and do everything else for the Jews, just keep posting like this and I’m fine.”

But I do have to take issue.

The Boss’ skin was all atrophied, but he did something to fix it. No one knows what he did. Many people think he is eating babies or something similar. But I saw him perform with The Killers recently, and I was like, “damn, old man looking great.”

I also saw him perform recently with another of my favorite half-assed pop bands, Gaslight Anthem, and also saw he looked fantastic.

He looks a lot better than Brian Fallon, who is half his age. Poor Brian. You see, we, the Irish, are driven towards drinking large amounts of alcohol. If we do not consume this precious substance in massive quantities, we will die or become terrorists (in fact, these things will probably happen even if we drink enough alcohol). The problem is that after 40, when we really need the alcohol the most, that precious fluid which keeps us alive can also make us bloat up like piñatas. It is our cross to bear and we simply ask that you not judge our race and will continue to support our Dark Emperor Conor after he bloats up like one of those balloon creatures that advertises discounts at used car lots.

The point is, Trump is supposed to be tapped into the culture and he should know that Bruce, while definitely still a communist who hates America and is trying to destroy our country, looks really good now. I do think Trump should arrest him and send him to a gulag in El Salvador for supporting Joe Biden, but surely we can all admit it’s quite something for a 75-year-old man to look that fresh and fit.

No one knows how he recovered from Trump’s deadly vaccine, but he did, and Trump of all people should be giving him credit for that.

Trump should also start playing “Born in the USA” at his rallies and wait for Bruce to sue then say he’s overruling the Supreme Court and going to keep playing it. He should actually play “Lost in the Flood,” because “Born in the USA” actually is overrated.

(That clip shows why people still know who Bruce is. In the 70s, he really was that good.)

But he won’t play that at a rally. Trump only likes positive vibes pop tripe.

Unlike some people, I don’t think the Village People are still funny. I stopped thinking that was funny long ago. The Lee Greenwood song is still funny, but I’m tired of it. He should play something.

The only thing I can think of right now that would meet his standards and fit with his dancing style is this:

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.