The Week’s Most Lucrific, Morbific, and Tenebrific Headlines

The black vote. Is there anything more important to conservatives? No, there isn’t. The black vote wins elections for the GOP and proves with finality that people on the right are not racist. Well, that’s the dream, anyway. The reality is, the black vote wins nothing for the GOP and even when there’s a marginal increase in it on the Republican side, it never mitigates the accusations of “white supremacy” and klansmanship that get tossed at rightists by the media every day.

We can’t be certain whose grand idea it was to invite black “philosopher, scholar, and musician” Young Pharaoh to CPAC 2021. What we can be certain of is that the person who birthed that crackerjack idea labors under the impression that they are the future of conservatism.

And in a way, that’s not untrue. Because the dogged pursuit of excremental self-defeating ideas appears to be the movement’s highest aspiration these days.

Young Pharaoh is a rapper and “Afrocentric polymath thinker” who’s as batshit insane as anyone else who’s ever claimed such a moniker. He runs an online “university” (website) that purports to teach young Black men that Afrikans invented everything, including UFOs and magic. Young Pharaoh’s mantra: “The white man is inferior, the BLACK MAN is GOD!”

Oh, and the Jews are satanic.

Last year the poor dumb bastard made the mistake of posting some drivel about how Donald Trump was the Black man’s friend because he was exposing the JEW 9/11 conspirators and revealing the truth about how Covid is biological warfare aimed at (guess who) THE BLACK MAN!

He also posted some videos about how the DEMOCRATS are the real racists who created the KKK, and how Obama is just a tool of the DEEP STATE.

Well, ’nuff said. Conservatives in unison screamed “the black voooooote!” and began following this imbecile like the messiah he thinks he is. The “free market patriot group” 1776ForeverFree invited him to perform at last October’s “March on Washington,” and CPAC excitedly announced that he’d be a guest at this year’s convention.

Except, as CPAC organizers were jerking off in joy, a few canny online sleuths looked at the guy’s website and videos. And they saw how every other word this halfwit has ever spoken or written has been either “Jews are evil” or “whites are stupid” (or this greatest hit about how whites are not genetically human, and they lack souls, too).

He also seems to think that Jews don’t exist; Jews are a myth like the round earth or the moon. But he also thinks Jews are evil. But they also don’t exist. But they do. They are at the same time extant and imaginary. It’s a quantum thing…Schrödinger’s Katz.

Last week, the organizers of CPAC stopped masturbating long enough to reluctantly scrub Young Pharaoh from their list of invitees (that included redacting his page on the CPAC website where he was lauded for his “scholarship”). Sadly, the world will never get to see Young Pharaoh share the stage with Trump, as they both lament the Platinum Plan that wasn’t.

Word has it that after canceling Young Pharaoh, one CPAC organizer asked another, “Do you think this makes conservatives look desperate? Slavishly slobbering over every person with dark skin who glances in our direction? Proclaiming every black back-alley crackhead the new King of Konservatism, no matter how insane their views?”

“Of course not,” the other organizer is reputed to have answered. “If we occasionally err, it’s only because our party cannot survive without blacks. After all, what other constituency do we have?”

And with that both men headed out to scour the alleys behind inner-city liquor stores for their next keynote speaker.

Speaking of the black vote, while CPAC was bollixing its attempt to show the world how amazingly not racist it is, over in Oklahoma, a Republican was showing the world how to not racist the right way.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, in office since January 2019, is as pro-life as they come. Man oh man, if you’re a fetus, this guy has your tiny little back.

Fetuses get protection in Kevin Stitt’s state!

White crime victims, not so much. After all, Stitt claims to be a “person of color” himself. Mind you, to the naked eye he’s as white as Palpatine. But apparently ten generations ago an ancestor got blown by a squaw, so he’s officially a “Cherokee.” And Big Chief Set’emfree is a huge fan of George Soros-style “criminal justice reform,” redirecting funding from law enforcement and incarceration toward “community development” for low-income minorities, and reducing most property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

In The Grapes of Wrath, the Joads fled Oklahoma for a better life in California. Stitt is currently hard at work penning Grapes of Wrath II, in which every crappy idea from California is trucked into Oklahoma.

Stitt’s greatest accomplishment, though, has been in the area of felony sentence commutations. Stitt oversaw what the Oklahoman newspaper called “the largest commutation in U.S. history.” You’re a violent felon? Make Kevin Stitt two promises: (1) You’ll never support abortion, and (2) you’ll never, ever, ever do crimes again, and off you go with a fruit basket and a “life begins at conception” sticker.

Proud black man Lawrence Anderson was in Proud Prison for a variety of crimes: attacking his girlfriend and holding her at gunpoint, possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, sale of crack near an elementary school, attacking a woman with a handgun in a church parking lot, and carrying a vial of PCP in his underwear. In 2017, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Last month, only a little over three years into his sentence, Anderson was freed by Republican Stitt, who commuted his sentence to prove that the Democrats are the real racists.

That was last month. Last week, Anderson murdered his neighbor, a 41-year-old white woman named Andrea Lynn Blankenship. He carved her heart out Temple of Doom-style, he took the heart back to his apartment, he cooked it with potatoes for dinner, and he fed it to his aunt, uncle, and the uncle’s 4-year-old granddaughter. And then he slaughtered the uncle and the little girl, and stabbed the aunt in both eyes.

Upon hearing the news, Kevin Stitt reportedly jumped for joy, as no fetuses had been harmed.

“Yes, the government of Boris Johnson is facing an enemy that surely would have made Churchill blanch…Third World poo!”

Funny enough, Stitt has yet to comment about the grotesque murders on his Twitter page, which he typically uses to flaunt his female and “people of color” appointees. Stitt’s followers, on the other hand, have been less reserved about bringing up the issue, flooding his posts with links about Anderson.

At a press conference last Tuesday, Grady County District Attorney Jason Hicks (also a Republican) condemned Stitt for the commutation: “I really think an offender such as this should have not ever been able to even apply for a commutation.”

George Soros, on the other hand, held a press conference the same day in which he just shook his head and said, “This is getting too fucking easy.”

No word yet on whether CPAC will make Stitt this year’s keynote speaker.

Life…begins at conception, and ends when a Republican releases a cannibal into your community.

If the previous two stories convey any singular message, it’s that the GOP has become a gelding where it matters. With Roe v. Wade the law of the land, Americans can count on their Republican buddies to be fearless regarding the rights of fetuses…because at present it’s a moot point. But on issues of crime, race, and immigration—stuff of current concern, stuff that can actually garner votes from the center—the mainstream GOP has zero balls.

It can be argued that a huge reason for Trump’s popularity in 2016 was his fearlessness when discussing the verboten topics. GOP voters, and red-leaning independents, had grown tired of mealymouthed Republicans whose talking points run the gamut from “thank you for your service” to “lower the capital gains tax.” Rightists wanted red meat on an outdoor grill, not elitist corporate pâté on a bed of kale.

The following is not a tangent…it’ll make sense shortly.

The tiny and abominably wealthy nation of Qatar is one of the leading real estate wheeler-dealers in the world. Already one of London’s biggest landowners, Qatar has recently been increasing its holdings in the U.S., spending damn near $100 billion to buy up parts of Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and West L.A.

See, Qatar businessmen have a gift…the gift of spotting a distressed property. Qatar smells your weakness, Qatar smells your desperation. And Qatar can buy and sell you a billion times over.

Qatar has another gift—gonads the size of boulders.

Ever since winning the right to hold the 2022 World Cup, Qatar has imported scores of Third World migrants as “temporary guest workers” to labor in the scorching heat constructing the World Cup infrastructure (this includes a new airport, new roads, new public transportation systems, new hotels, and even a new city). Last week, The Guardian reported that more than 6,500 of these workers from India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Kenya have dropped dead laboring for Qatari World Cup glory. And the Qatar government’s attitude has been “Hey—we said ‘temporary’ workers! And ‘temporary’ they were.”

The British relinquished Qatar in 1971, and they seem to have left their “nogs are disposable” colonial spirit behind within its borders.

And now Qatar has spotted its newest distressed property—American conservatism. Disappointed by weak-willed, politically correct leaders who do little but parrot anti-racist talking points, smothered and silenced by Big Tech and the mainstream media, let down by Fox News, which proved not Trumpian enough when it counted, American rightists are crying out for a new platform…and Qatar is more than happy to step up.

Qatar-based Al Jazeera is launching a new right-wing channel called Rightly, geared toward Americans who want their conservatism straight and strong, outside the sphere of influence of the Zuckerbergs and Dorseys, and backed by a people who literally don’t mind stepping over dead Third Worlders as they walk from their sports cars to their luxury skyscrapers. Staffed by former Fox employees, Rightly promises to be a voice for underserved rightists in search of something that’ll make NewsMax and OAN look like NRO.

If Rightly succeeds, it’ll mark one of the starkest examples of how allegiances have shifted since the immediate post-9/11 period, when everything Arab was suspect and rightists fretted about Ground Zero mosques and sharia law. As Con Inc. has drifted further left, it’ll be an irony indeed if a little of that shameless arrogant stone-cold Arab blood is exactly what conservatives need to feel alive and invigorated again.

At the very least, the new network’s Sunday-night news show should prove interesting: 60 Minarets, hosted by Ramadanald J. Trump.

Bee afraid. Bee very afraid.

You know that recent spate of violent attacks committed against elderly Asians by primarily black assailants? Well, leftists have proclaimed the real cause of the violence to be Trump and white supremacy.

Crazy, right? Black street thugs attacking Asians because of Donald Trump and white racism? Nothing could be loopier than that!

Wrong again, oh naive reader.

Turns out even the leftists blaming Trump and the Klan for anti-Asian black violence have it wrong. The real culprit behind all those Oriental muggings is…ready for it?

Clint Eastwood.

Shocking, huh? But true. At least according to Bee Vang. You remember Bee Vang, right? Right? Okay, nobody remembers the poor sonofabitch by name. Even his own mother refers to him as “the Asian kid from Gran Torino.” That was the 2008 Eastwood-directed after-school special where Clint played a crusty ol’ racist whose heart is warmed when he befriends a Hmong boy and defends the youngster against gangs and bullies.

It’s the film where Eastwood told the writer, “Have me say ‘get off my lawn’ to some thugs…and then flesh the fucking thing out with filler so I get a 90-minute runtime.”

Eastwood’s character has the typical clichéd redemption arc endemic to all simpleminded morality tales: He starts out a racist, but learns rainbow tolerance we all bleed red yada yada blah blah.

Hmong-American actor Bee Vang played the boy. But that was only the beginning for this stunning young talent. After finding fame as “the boy from Gran Torino,” Vang went on to become “the man who was the boy from Gran Torino.”

And now he’s “the bitter unemployed 30-year-old who was the boy from Gran Torino.”

Last week he was a guest opinion writer for NBC News, where he penned a piece blaming Eastwood’s Torino character for today’s anti-Asian violence.

Vang’s op-ed is, to put it mildly, difficult to follow. White audiences embraced Eastwood’s character’s racism in the 2008 film, thus mainstreaming anti-Asian hatred, while Covid represents a war against Asians by whites that’s as bad as the carpet-bombing of Laos, but Asians remain silent in the face of this genocide because Gran Torino “has beaten us into silent submission,” so because of Covid, Gran Torino is retroactively evil, but it was also evil at the time, Vang just didn’t recognize it as such back then, because there was no Covid yet.

That’s about as much sense as can be made of Vang’s word lao yum.

Funny enough, on his Instagram account, Vang spends most of his time ranting against other Asians. Specifically Koreans who look down on the Hmong as “low-achieving low education” eternal refugees incapable of finding economic success and prosperity in foreign lands.

Vang—broke and barely literate, having blown his chance to capitalize on the opportunities presented by Gran Torino’s success in order to build a career for himself—attacks Koreans as “pigs” for daring to paint all Hmong as broke illiterates unable to capitalize on opportunities to build careers for themselves.

Well played, Vang. Well played. That certainly shows those Koreans who’s boss!

A shrewd and penetrating killshot from a guy who these days is most likely to be told “get off my lawn” by groundskeepers clearing transients out of a public park.

The Nazis? The Kaiser? Napoleon? The Spanish Armada? Mere pikers compared with the newest foe against which great and mighty England has declared war: “wild toileting”!

Yes, the government of Boris Johnson is facing an enemy that surely would have made Churchill blanch…Third World poo!

As with all wars, knowing the backstory is important.

In India, as is well-known if not always well-portrayed in Merchant-Ivory period pieces, the lower castes love to take a good poop on the sidewalk. Thankfully, as the First World has descended into Third Worldier territory over the past few decades, fewer and fewer people in “civilized” nations notice should the odd Punjabi immigrant defecate here or there on the pavement, considering the fact that in most big cities homeless schizos and druggies have already beaten them to it.

But West Africans, well, they know better than to use something as base as a pedestrian walkway for the loo. No, Africans are made of heartier stuff. They prefer the ocean. As CitiNewsroom (Ghana’s leading news website) reported in 2018, even when the governments of coastal African towns build fancy public bathrooms, the locals “prefer the beach to public toilets” (one local explained to CitiNewsroom that it’s because there’s “more space”).

This is not a minor issue. Countries like Ghana, dependent as they are on beach resort tourism from young Western ninnies who want to, you know, like, see Africans and become one with nature, have been losing millions of dollars as those resorts become like Amity Island if the shark were a flotilla of turds.

Apparently, African immigrants have been bringing their affection for beach boweling to the formerly pristine shores of the U.K. And now some of the owners and overseers of those beaches are petitioning the Johnson government to launch a campaign to prevent the practice before the Covid lockdown on outdoor activities is lifted.

It seems that during the U.K.’s lengthy shutdown, the beaches have “healed” from years of abuse by immigrants, and those with a stake in maintaining England’s seaside tidiness want to keep it that way.

The Lulworth Estate, which owns something called Durdle Door, which is apparently an iconic coastal landscape in Dorset and not what you mockingly say to a retarded kid, has demanded that Johnson educate “culturally diverse beachgoers” to stop the “wild toileting” practice before loosening the leash on outdoor romping.

According to The Sunday Times, the “huge change in visitor demographics” at Durpy Derp has led to “environmental degradation such as has never been experienced before.” This “much younger and more geographically and culturally diverse cohort” has brought sanitation issues and environmental concerns “to the nation’s’ coast and countryside.”

Natural England, the government’s environment watchdog, said it was updating its code for visitors to the countryside to make it more relevant to the new type of visitor, including “those from low-income areas, urban areas, ethnic-minority backgrounds, younger people and people with long-term health conditions.”

Boris Johnson’s popularity may be at an all-time low at the moment, but the man knows his history. Taking a cue from England’s greatest wartime PM, Johnson has seen the foe, and he’s pledged to “fight it on the beaches.”

This shall be his finest ordure.

GSTAAD—The sun has returned, the snow is so-so, and exercise has replaced everything, including romance. What a way to go, after a wasted year that did wonders for my health, the diet is about to kill the patient. This is the good-bad news, the really great news is that Shakespeare has been canceled by some woke American female teachers because they think his classic works promote “misogyny, racism, homophobia, classism, anti Semitism, and misogynoir.” This is a direct quote and all I can say is, although I am perhaps overly attached to the past, no wonder so many people love Shakespeare.

There is nothing like what’s going on in America today. In old Europe people can be arrested for saying mean things, like a woman’s breasts are too big, whereas in America they are allowed to say anything, even that a woman’s tits are too small. Instead of arresting offenders, the Americans cancel them. I don’t think Shakespeare ever dealt with women’s bosoms at length, if at all, but he’s been canceled for making Shylock a sympathetic character, if a bit money-minded, and Othello a bit dark and slightly jealous. Shakespeare’s critics, and they are many in America, especially among women, are particularly annoyed about Romeo being some kind of hero; they find the poor sod suffering from toxic masculinity.

“After Shakespeare, whose turn is next?”

After Shakespeare, whose turn is next? The Bard is denounced as a louse, but what about those ghastly Greeks? Now that young fop-wop Romeo has fallen foul of the girls and is seen to suffer from toxic masculinity, what about Orestes? He killed his own mother for what she did to his daddy, and if that’s not toxic masculinity, I don’t know what is. And it gets worse. These American female schoolteachers who have banned Willie have not uttered a word against Sophocles and his Oedipus, not to mention Jocasta. The mother and son made whoopee together, the son blinded himself as a result while she committed Greek seppuku, yet one’s free to read about them in a Bronx high school textbook. (Except I don’t think Oedi and Jo are exactly conversation pieces among the gangbangers in the Bronx.)

Mind you, it is far more likely to have an Oedipus-Jocasta situation in the Bronx today than a Romeo-Juliet one. Call me cynical, but 13-year-olds are giving birth in the land of the canceled every day, so a modern Sophocles is more likely to emerge and write about an Oedipus complex than a Puerto Rican Shakespeare about R&J. Never mind. Education in America, already lousy in overcrowded schools with high school graduates who cannot read in some cases, has now found a new villain in Shakespeare. It is not enough that poor young Americans are hardly literate at 18 years of age, they now have woke standards to uphold on their way to becoming total simpletons.

After a consultation with old Pythia at her oracle in Delphi, I see an educational gulag in the making. The system used by the Chinese to this day was called reeducation, but I prefer brainwashing. Americans, I predict, will be mercilessly brainwashed until they forget every Greek, Roman, German, and Brit—in fact, every white motherfucker who ever put words on stone, papyrus. or paper. There will be, to be sure, certain pockets of resistance to this trend, but by and large woke brigades will do away with Western culture, which has always been their goal.

Every day brings fresh news from anguished oldies who cry out for help in warding off still-greater horrors they see in store for them. Hollywood movies are now substituted for classic texts, films that show how whiteness is the real enemy of mankind. I have always had a beef with Hollywood because it has never really taken to the old Greeks. I remember when still in my teens I went to see a film about the Trojan War, with Helen of Troy depicted by the sexy bomba Rosanna Podesta. Oh how I suffered watching the sexy one flirt with that archvillain Paris, but then Menelaos came onto the screen and I became Orlando Furioso. He was fat, bearded, and ugly, as was his brother and leader of the Greeks, Agamemnon. I was in my teens, otherwise I would have gone to Hollywood and made mincemeat out of the bum who cast two slobs as our two great kings.

Of all the Hollywood films about that period, and I used to line up to see them all, only one, about the immortal 300 Spartans in Thermopylae, with Richard Egan playing Leonidas, did us justice. The latest atrocity about the 300 was the worst ever. I went to see it with two karatekas, Richard Amos and John Rigas, and I walked out. They laughed at me, but I was right. The flick showed some kind of freak monster leading the Persian hordes, and although the Spartans came out okay, sci-fi has no business in historical fact. If anything should be canceled it should be sci-fi. Art and history must be defended, but if we allow the modern barbarians to even argue their case, we will find ourselves collaborating with our enemies on the destruction of the very things we have set out to defend and preserve. Let the barbarians cancel whom they like, while we cancel them, their movies, their newspapers, and, most important of all, their social media.

It is difficult to tell the difference these days between what is the serious and the spoof. For example, I came across this recently, an article in the student magazine of University College, London:

The benefits of a good cry are manifold: it detoxifies the body, helps self-sooth, dulls pain, helps restore emotional balance and acts as a pretty clear signifier to pals and strangers alike that you need a kind word or hug.

So having established the cathartic utility of a good cry—where are the best places to cry on campus?

For the sake of this article and future generations of UCL students, this list is not restricted to the places currently open during lockdown, because that would be woefully limited, but details the twenty best and worst places for a little cry on campus.

I cannot be absolutely sure, of course, but I think this is not satire; but even if it is satire, it is not without interest. Let us proceed on the assumption that it’s meant literally, or with only faint irony.

One must make allowances for the age of the writer, of course, for youth is the age of solemn superficiality, but all the same I find it alarming that someone who is probably in the 1 or 2 percent who will form the intellectual, and possibly the social, elite of the country can believe that crying detoxifies the human body. It is true that in the not-very- distant past, surgeons used to cut out various portions of the intestinal tracts of hypochondriacs in the belief that they were introducing unspecified “poisons” into the system, and that some doctors even removed the teeth of madmen because they believed that infection of their gums was the cause of their madness, but one might have hoped that talk of, and belief in, unidentified bodily “toxins” would have disappeared with the advance of science.

“This eulogy to crying and sobbing seems to me emblematic of a time in which people gain their sense of self by being noticed by others.”

Where people are prepared to cry in public, and doing so is hoped to bring some advantage, the meaning of the gesture must be devalued. Indeed, its sincerity will come into question, as does the sincerity of expressions of repentance when there is an obvious reward (a lesser prison sentence, for example) for expressing it. Likewise with swearing, which means something if a person does not habitually swear. If people incontinently take to crying, then they will come to be either ignored or suspected of trying it on, or the solace others will offer them will be as bogus as the tears that call it forth. There are laws of diminishing returns and marginal utility in displays of emotion.

The young writer goes on to enumerate further advantages of public weeping:

There is something pretty freeing in a proper sob in public, a kind of revelry in the shamelessness of just not caring…

Liberation from what, one might ask? The only answer seems to be restraint, the need to keep one’s composure and dignity in public. Instead, what is preferred is shamelessness, an asocial quality at best, an antisocial one at worst. For shamelessness is an indifference to the opinion or even the comfort of others, as well as a loss of sense of seemliness and dignity (I doubt if many people these days even know what seemly means; it is not a word much in current use).

Of course, indifference to the opinion of others can be a virtue, for example in matters of public significance. Public opinion or conduct may be very wrong, and opposing it an act of virtuous courage (not all courage is virtuous). But this is hardly what the writer means; she means the sheer self-indulgence and egocentricity of giving way to one’s feeling without regard to others, emotional wallowing as an end in itself.

The article suggests various reasons for crying, and presumably for sobbing in public, for example lateness with handing in an essay, or a bad mark. (How pathetic to cry over a bad mark! Surely the mature response is to issue a writ against the teacher who marked you low for breach of contract. No one pays tuition fees, after all, let alone living expenses, to be given bad marks. What other business would dare to treat its customers in so shabby a fashion?)

One swallow doesn’t make a summer, and one article in a student paper doesn’t make a culture. Nevertheless, this eulogy to crying and sobbing—albeit sometimes in public toilets, generally given high marks for suitability as a location, especially when there are people around to give the person who is crying a hug when he or she emerges from the cubicle—seems to me emblematic of a time in which people gain their sense of self by being noticed by others. For what is the point of having an emotion if you do not display it to others? Innerness is a kind of treason to the self.

In human affairs, there is no new thing under the sun. There has always been emotional incontinence, exaggeration, and blackmail. There have always been people whose emotions have been intense but shallow. I remember a neighbor of mine who went in a matter of minutes from suicidal despair to manic euphoria and back again, forgetting the very next day that she had made an exhibition of herself, and evidently expecting me to have done so also. The question, then, is not whether a psychological trait is altogether new (it never is), but whether it is more or less common in the population, and whether a culture encourages or discourages it. There is also the question of whether or not it is a desirable trait.

A population that hesitates not to cry in public is likely to be also a population of many frauds, of many actors and actresses, and of many liars. More dangerously, it will be a population without the capacity for real self-examination; many will no longer be able to distinguish between minor inconvenience and real tragedy, between slight loss and real grief, not only in others but in themselves. It will be a society in which tears will be not only an argument, but a conclusive one; and the more tears the more conclusive.

Above every university entrance, therefore, ought to be inscribed the following words: Thank you for not expressing yourself.

Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Around the World in the Cinemas of Paris, Mirabeau Press.

A little more than a year ago, 2,000 antifa tried to shut down my speech at UC Berkeley, according to police on the scene. The Berkeley police chief had ordered her officers to stand outside the building like mute ninjas, and make no arrests, unless they personally witnessed a felony being committed in front of them.

So barring a bank suddenly popping up on the sidewalk and an antifa attempting to rob it, I had no official protection from 2,000 violent, mentally disturbed thugs.

Thank God I had the Proud Boys.

There had been no warning of the antifa mobilization against me until an hour before the event, when they showed up, with a thousand of them at each entrance to the building where I was to speak.

Luckily, I’d invited about 20 Proud Boys from northern California chapters to attend my speech. If I hadn’t, I might not have made it to the campus at all. (If antifa had won, at least you would have heard about my visit to Berkeley, because the media would have reported on it triumphantly.)

“They want American citizens to be defenseless against antifa stormtroopers.”

The College Republicans had booked a private room for dinner in an Oakland restaurant earlier that evening, so I invited the Proud Boys to meet me there 45 minutes before the students arrived. We all had to recognize one another, in case they were needed to help deal with any violence during my speech.

College Republicans are absolutely fantastic, but generally are about as prepared for hand-to-hand combat as I am.

By contrast, the Proud Boys are brawny, tattooed brutes. Many are ex-military. Some worked security for a living, so my bodyguard planned to use a few of them as auxiliary troops, and the rest would get VIP seats so they could be spread throughout the audience in case of pandemonium.

As I was taking pictures with the Proud Boys at the restaurant, a freakish transgender in combat boots, fishnet stockings and a man-bun snuck into our private room via a back staircase. It seems that a rainbow-haired waitress had spotted me during the 30 seconds I was passing through the public part of the restaurant, and had called in my location to her antifa pals.

Poor Fishnet Boy surely had expected to burst in on 99-pound me having a nice dinner with a group of sweet College Republicans. Instead, he (she?) walked into what must have looked like a Hell’s Angels convention.

Not so brave, now, eh, Fishnet Boy? He/She bowed his head, pretended to use the cash register, and quickly made his exit.

But by now, my whereabouts had been posted on the antifa Facebook page, and they were coming to the restaurant. We found out only because the post was spotted by the wife of a Proud Boy, who was monitoring antifa internet chatter from home. Thank you, Proud Boys’ wife!

I’d barely been seated with the students for 15 minutes when my bodyguard told me we had to go. Antifa were starting to gather outside the restaurant.

Unfortunately, our Suburban was in a parking lot four blocks away.

Again, thank God for the Proud Boys. About a dozen of them surrounded me as we made our way to the garage, so that I was free to wave and smile at the black-clad loons screaming that I was a Nazi white supremacist bitch. Which book have you read?

At the garage, the Proud Boys cleared the stairwells and elevator, and safely deposited me into our Suburban, all while I was being trailed by lunatics.

On campus, I strolled with my bodyguard by the 200-yard line of officers — ordered to make no arrests — with shrieking sociopaths just on the other side of the line. Once inside the building, the Proud Boys stood guard at my green room, behind the stage, in the hallways — already lined with cops — and in the audience, until the speech was over and I left. (It was a huge hit!)

I’m trying to imagine how I would have made it from the restaurant to our car without the Proud Boys. At the least, it would have been a nasty scene, and it’s not implausible that I, the College Republicans or restaurant patrons would have been physically assaulted. I certainly would not have been able to stride confidently onto the stage to give my speech without the magnificent Proud Boys there, keeping me safe.

Now you know why the left defames the Proud Boys. They want American citizens to be defenseless against antifa stormtroopers.

When have the Proud Boys ever started a fight? Answer: Never. Their motto is: “We don’t start fights, we finish them.” And they have, protecting me and the nice people coming to see me, all over the country — Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York and San Francisco, among other places.

Until you’ve been face-to-face with black-clad psychos who want you dead, you will never understand the undying devotion to the Proud Boys among those of us who have.

Here’s something the media won’t tell you: In a public statement on Dec. 22, 2020, the Proud Boys officially announced they would not be attending Trump’s Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C. (Video here: And you know why? As founder Gavin McInnes said:

“It’s one thing when people want you dead. In this case you also have the politicians, and the justice system, and the media also wanting [the Proud Boys] dead. So when you get stabbed, it becomes: ‘FOUR PEOPLE STABBED AT PROUD BOYS THING!’… All of those factors together is a perfect storm for MUR-DER.”

A lot of good staying away did them! Of more than 5,000 Proud Boys worldwide, fewer than 10 entered the Capitol that day, and — according to the indictment — took selfies.


Liberals want their antifa/BLM goons to be free to intimidate, hospitalize and — in at least two cases last year — murder their opponents. That’s why they must criminalize men who protect the innocent.

Donald McNeil worked at The New York Times for 45 years. He was recently nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for his articles on the pandemic. In a discussion several years ago with a teenager about one of her classmates, McNeill asked if the classmate had called someone else the N-word or whether she had been rapping or only quoting a book title. It was as if he had said: “We should all be very careful never to call anyone a ‘nigger.’”

He was investigated, of course! And acquitted. But that was then—before the healing spirit of Joe Biden covered the land.

Just recently, however, 150 New York Times employees demanded that the investigation be reopened. It was—and McNeil resigned.

It’s tempting to say to McNeil, “Serves you right for working at The New York Times.” And maybe it does.

But maybe he worked there to feed his wife and children (do New York Times employees have children?) or his aging parents. We should examine the issue, regardless of how woke McNeil may be, because his fate may tell us something about us.

McNeil is the victim of cultural terrorism, and if “the community” (even if it isn’t his community) doesn’t object to his treatment, the community’s members will become victims too. It’s time the non-woke community said, “Enough!”

Parenthetically, isn’t it also time to see if Joseph Pulitzer’s papers ever used the word “nigger”—and if they did, to rename the prize?

Why, one should ask, is saying or writing “nigger” so bad? Please don’t say it shocks people. In modern discourse, print, and screen, the f-word and the s-word (and a lot of words just like them) are used as commonly as “and” and “but” and “the” without any delisting by the guardians of our culture.

Here’s a line from the movie The Way of the Gun, described as “an American neo-Western action thriller: “Shut that cunt’s mouth or I’ll come over there and fuckstart her head.”

Have you ever listened to gangsta rap music? Don’t. It’s a persuasive argument for mandatory induced aphasia. It’s mostly, or entirely, a product of black culture (though that libels the word “culture”). And it is hugely offensive to anyone who remains capable of being offended.

“McNeil is the victim of cultural terrorism, and if ‘the community’ doesn’t object to his treatment, the community’s members will become victims too.”

Where is the socially redeeming value in “X-Is Coming” by DMX?

Man, if we was up north, niggas would have been fucked you
But then we in the streets, niggas should haven been stuck you
Plucked you like a chicken wit’ your head cut off
They’ll find you wit’ your back open and your legs cut off
And as for your man, don’t you ever in your mothafuckin’ life
Know when I gotta gun come at me wit’ a knife, a’ight?
And forgetting you ever saw me is the best thing to do
Don’t give a fuck about your family, they’ll be resting with you

And then “they” come along, these cultural nihilists, these cultural nihilists at The New York Times, and tell normal people which words are offensive. Please!

Why do they tell us that it’s okay for blacks to use the word “nigger,” or “nigga,” as commonly as other people say “good morning,” but not whites? What’s going on here?

One of two things. Either the wokies are treating blacks as inferiors, too stupid and coarse to stop scratching in public and using “nigger” when they talk among themselves. Or they are pandering to blacks as they all, blacks and white wokies alike, mau-mau the white man. Which is worse? Use only one and a half blue books.

If it’s okay for blacks to say “nigger” but a firing offense for whites, what white parents will want their children going to school or playing with black children and picking up language that will get them expelled from school or their parents canned from their jobs?

For the record (pay attention): One should not call anyone a “nigger.” Period.

But neither, for the record, should anyone call someone a “fucking cunt.” Period.

Would you lose your job at The New York Times if you had asked a student if her classmate had actually called someone else a “fucking cunt” or whether she had been only rapping or quoting a book title? Please. We’re trying to have a serious discussion.

“Canuck” was once a vaguely insulting term for Canadians, not nearly as potent as “nigger,” but still insulting.

Today, if you’re a young lad and you like to play hockey, you’d give your eye teeth (and you may literally have already given your eye teeth) to play on the Vancouver hockey team: The Canucks.

Years ago, an enterprising young writer suggested that the Harlem Globetrotters—who made basketball look like special effects before special effects had been invented—change their name to (you know where this is going) the Harlem Niggers.

Every basketball-playing kid in the country would have dreamed about joining the Harlem Niggers.

For those of you who don’t follow basketball, it didn’t happen.

And it won’t happen because blacks, at least the noisy, rabble-rousing blacks like “The Reverend” Al Sharpton, like the word “nigger,” but they like it as a proprietary tool with which to beat up whites.

And the wokies like it for the same reason. You can easily imagine, oh, 150 New York Times writers sitting around having drinks after a hard day’s work at the office writing copy about how Joe Biden is bringing us all together, saying, “Hey, let’s do something to get that Catholic schmuck at desk 45 to use the word ‘nigger’ so we can get him canned.”

Of course, “schmuck” is a Jewish word, but they wouldn’t mind using it as long as they thought other people wouldn’t think they were pro-Israel.

These people are cultural mau-maus, and “nigger” is one of their machetes.

A newspaper column is about 800 words. Fifty columnists should send in their column (on Feb. 28, the last day of “Black History Month”) containing just one word, “nigger,” 800 times. O offensive word, where would thy sting be then? Of course, the wokies wouldn’t approve; they like the word “nigger”: It’s one of their favorite tools.

You may not know Donald McNeil. You may think New York Times writers are all scum. And you may be right.

But if you don’t speak out for McNeil, who’ll speak out on your behalf when they come for you?

When asked if he regards the endless attempts by Antifa rioters to burn down the federal courthouses in Portland and Seattle as acts of domestic extremism and terrorism, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden’s nominee to be Attorney General, replied:

So an attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is, uhm, domestic extremism, uhm, domestic terrorism. An attack simply on a government property at night…or any other kind of circumstances, is a clear crime and a serious one and should be punished. I don’t mean…I don’t know enough about the facts of the example you’re talking about, but that’s where I draw the line. One is…both are criminal, but one is a core attack on our democratic institutions.

After all, how can anyone expect an Attorney General-designate to know enough facts about attacks on the federal judicial system that kept happening night after night?

It was after his bedtime.

Seriously, if you watched only the carefully curated national news, you’d have gotten the impression that (a) Antifa doesn’t exist; (b) Antifa is a civic betterment movement led by the public-spirited Wall of Moms; and (c) The peaceful protesters of Antifa were the Gandhi-like victims of Trumpian brutality.

On the other hand, some of us who are Pacific time zone night owls watched hundreds of Andy Ngo videos of what was happening in Seattle and Portland during the wee hours long after the national media had called a lid on their coverage of the Peaceful Protests. In Ngo’s simple video footage, the Antifada sure looked extremist and terrorizing.

Ngo, a brave Portland journalist, writes in his new best-seller Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy:

…reports from legacy media outlets focused heavily on the alleged “block party” atmosphere of the occupation, repeating a talking point from [Seattle] Mayor [Jenny] Durkan. “The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone #CHAZ is not a lawless wasteland of anarchist insurrectionists—it is a peaceful expression of our community’s collective grief and their desire to build a better world.”… Of course, when media crews arrived at the gates of CHAZ during the day, this might have been believable…. At night, a whole different side of CHAZ emerged when the media crews and outside visitors left.

But how could a federal judge of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals like Judge Garland see what was happening to federal courthouses at night?

It’s dark out there!

If domestic terrorism doesn’t happen before the evening news, it didn’t happen.

After 24 days of insurrection and nights of violence in CHAZ, the Antifa vigilantes’ tendency to nervously shoot black males finally got on even the Democratic mayor’s nerves. As it turned out, Antifa didn’t fight like the Paris Commune of 1871. Instead, the cops cleared the insurrectionists out of their six downtown blocks in under an hour.

But when the politicians are less determined or, as so often was the case in 2020, on the side of Antifa, the leftist gangs can carry on their violence for months, as in Portland.

Ngo, who was severely beaten by Antifa in 2019, leaving him with a bleeding brain and temporarily slurred speech, warns that the right-wing meme that Antifa are weak and effeminate is misleading. Despite (or perhaps due to) the remarkable number of transgender ex-men among the brawlers, on the whole Antifa represent masculinity at its most toxic: guys who like criminal violence (and girls who like guys who like inflicting pain on the police).

Where did Antifa come from anyway?

“If domestic terrorism doesn’t happen before the evening news, it didn’t happen.”

Ngo explains in Unmasked that the name originated with the Stalinist street thugs of the Weimar Republic. But they spent much of the 1920s battling the Social Democrat militias, only coming up with the name Anti-Fascist in 1932 shortly before Hitler took power.

Then in the late 1970s, the Antifa moniker and the continental institution of street clashes ostensibly over ideology were picked up in Britain, with its spoilsport tradition of deciding politics by peaceable debate rather than by fighting in the streets. Leftist skinhead punk rock fans looking for an acceptable excuse to hold a white riot against rightist skinhead punk rock fans latched on to the Antifa concept.

Finally, in the U.S. in the 21st century, this mélange of Marxism, anarchism, and punk rock was picked up in the U.S. and merged with soccer fandom in the Pacific Northwest. To a certain type of white person, it’s the perfect storm of Stuff White People Like about Europe: arcane and brutal continental ideologies, electric guitar rock, and soccer hooliganism.

Antifa was a growing threat to free speech in blue cities over the past half decade, although anti-KKK laws forbidding the wearing of masks for political purposes could control them where the authorities weren’t on their side. Then, 2020’s sudden mandate that good citizens must wear masks helped empower Antifa to run amok in the name of George Floyd.

Ngo argues that Antifa members dressed in black bloc garb would often incite BLM blacks to loot by being the first to smash a window.

On the other hand, oftentimes it seemed as if white Antifa rioters would methodically break windows out of some obsessive-compulsive urge to leave no window unsmashed. For example, here’s a funny video from the Jacob Blake riots in which four black BLM marchers randomly throw bricks through the windows of the Kenosha Kumon learning center, then get bored and move on. But they are followed by an evidently white black bloc anarchist who methodically shatters all the remaining windows that the impulsive blacks had left.

Yet the social roots of Antifa remain vague because only independent journalists like Ngo, Ian Miles Cheong, and Project Veritas have dared cover Antifa in depth. For example, Ngo’s editor Kate Hartson was fired by the big Hachette publishing house just as Ngo’s book was published to substantial sales.

My impression is that Antifa foot soldiers tend to be downscale whites with antisocial personalities, ugly, nasty people such as meth addicts and child molesters who have had problems with the law. You could immediately tell that the theory that an Antifa false-flag operation had engineered the foolish Jan. 6 Capitol intrusion was mostly conservative cope because MAGA roughnecks are substantially better-looking on average than Antifa hooligans.

On the other hand, Antifa are much better organized. Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) could declare in late July with a straight face that reports of Antifa violence in Portland are “a myth” in part because Antifa is, as Ngo says, a “phantom movement by design.” He notes:

Since 2016, we have been told over and over…that antifa is not an organization. We’ve been lied to. While there is no single A “Antifa” organization with one leader, there are indeed localized cells and groups with formalized structures and memberships…. It is not a coincidence that a large group of militants dressed in the same uniform know how to coordinate mass attacks on people and property.

Project Veritas infiltrated Portland’s Rose City Antifa and found that new members were required to undergo six months of training and vetting. Ngo reprints the fifteen-page syllabus that Veritas obtained, which reads like a college course in how to be a violent leftist revolutionary.

Antifa’s tactics are cleverly designed to look mostly peaceful on national TV. For example, demonstrators frequently throw water bottles at the police, which appears almost harmless on TV. But what viewers don’t know is that they’ve frozen the normally flimsy bottles rock-hard.

Who exactly is behind Antifa remains vague. Ngo mentions a few academics who provide guidance, and the old Stalinist National Lawyers Guild offers free legal assistance to put rioters on the legal merry-go-round that typically gets them released in time to riot again the next night. According to Ngo, sizable amounts of cash come in from GoFundMe and Venmo, but he doesn’t report the names of any huge donors.

A year ago, I was asked which party would win the 2020 presidential election. I replied that it might depend on which side’s crazies acted out the worst. For example, Black Lives Matter terrorism, rioting, and murders hurt Hillary in 2016, while the anti-Semitic mass shooting at the Pittsburgh synagogue in late October 2018 hurt Republicans.

As it turned out, I was wrong: The right behaved surprisingly well throughout stressful 2020, with virtually no mass shootings or Mostly Peaceful Protests. In contrast, after Memorial Day, BLM and Antifa rioted about 600 times.

And Trump still lost.

Yet, it was close, with Trump coming within 34,000 votes of tying 269–269 in the Electoral College, which would have meant he’d win in a state-by-state vote in the House, assuming the inevitable anti-Trump mayhem didn’t lead to a color revolution coup.

But in January, Trump, with his power of positive thinking mindset, pressed his (and the right’s) luck one time too many, leading to the ridiculous events of Jan. 6, which the media will make sure will live in infamy.

After all, unlike hundreds of the left’s riots over the past year, the right’s one big riot happened in broad daylight.

“What is America’s mission?” is a question that has been debated since George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1797.

At last week’s Munich Security Conference, President Joe Biden laid out his vision as to what is America’s mission. And the contrast with the mission enunciated by George W. Bush in his second inaugural could not have been more defining or dramatic.

Here is Bush, Jan. 20, 2005:

“From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth…

“About new crusades for democracy, Americans don’t care much.”

“Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation… Now it is… the calling of our time.”

“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

America’s mission is “ending tyranny in our world,” said Bush.

Biden’s declared mission is far less ambitious.

“We are in the midst of a fundamental debate about the future and direction of our world. We’re at an inflection point between those who argue that… autocracy is the best way forward… and those who understand that democracy is essential.”

“Historians are going to… write about this moment as an inflection point… And I believe that — every ounce of my being — that democracy will and must prevail. We must demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people in this changed world.

“That, in my view, is our galvanizing mission.

“Democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it. We have to prove that our model isn’t a relic of our history.”

So, we have to “demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people,” and prove that our democracy is not “a relic”? Nothing here about the worldwide triumph of freedom or “ending tyranny in our world.”

Intending no disrespect, this is scarcely “galvanizing,” like, say, JFK’s inaugural:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

“This much we pledge — and more.”

In his Munich speech, Biden reassured Moscow and Beijing that the last thing we want is a new Cold War like the one that ended in America’s victory over communism, the Soviet Empire and the USSR.

Said Biden: Our mission is “not about pitting East against West. It’s not about we want a conflict. We want a future where all nations are able to freely determine their own path without a threat of violence or coercion. We cannot and must not return to the… rigid blocs of the Cold War. Competition must not lock out cooperation on issues that affect us all.”

Biden seems to be calling for “peaceful existence” between the democracies and the autocrats, and detente with both a Russia ruled by Vladimir Putin and a China ruled by Communist Party chair Xi Jinping.

Truth be told, Biden’s words are more in tune with the country today than are JFK’s (which led straight to Vietnam), or Bush 43’s neocon reveries, which vanished in the sands of Iraq.

Biden’s remarks also reveal the dichotomy that exists between what is on the minds of his countrymen, and what is on the minds of so many among our foreign policy elites.

Our Beltway elites want to “stand up” to Putin for Crimea and for prosecuting dissident Alexei Navalny. They want to stand up to autocrat Alexander Lukashenko for his fraudulent reelection. They want to stand up to China for its crackdown on Hong Kong and barbarous treatment of the Uighurs.

They want the U.S. to lead a global campaign to force the Burmese generals to surrender power, which they just seized from the civilian leadership.

What are the American people, most of whom could probably not find Belarus or Burma on a map, most concerned about?

The half a million Americans dead in the COVID-19 pandemic. That so many of the schools have failed to reopen and the kids are locked up at home. They know about the economic consequences of sheltering in place. They know about delays in the distribution of vaccines.

They remember the long hot summer of riot and race hatred that followed the death of George Floyd. Everyone has an opinion on Donald Trump’s challenge of the election results, and the mob invasion of the Capitol is burned into the national consciousness.

They are aware of the crisis on the Southern border now that Biden has put out the welcome mat. And everyone knows about the loss of heat, light, power and water in Texas from the worst winter storm in decades.

About new crusades for democracy, Americans don’t care much.

They do care, deeply, about what is happening to their own country.

In last week’s column, after months of being stonewalled I finally confronted one of the authors of a “scientific study” that purported to prove that last summer’s BLM riots actually made the Covid pandemic better. Last year, that study was paraded around like a victorious quarterback atop the shoulders of a cheering media grateful to have “proof” that violating Covid lockdowns is fine as long as you’re BLM.

The crux of the study was that fear of BLM riots kept ordinary folks at home and away from crowded establishments, thus mitigating Covid spread. The paper’s multi-credentialed authors used cell-phone “ping” data to measure foot traffic at bars and restaurants before and during the riots to “prove” that folks were staying home because of BLM.

So here I came, with no degree—no high school diploma, noch—and I got the corresponding author to cop to a flaw in his non-peer-reviewed study. The authors hadn’t taken into account the fact that in cities like L.A., where bars and indoor dining were not open during the surveyed period, food-buying foot traffic would’ve been in grocery stores, which in many cases became more crowded during the riot period due to panic buying and citywide curfews that slashed supermarket hours, thus forcing more shoppers into fewer hours.

The authors failed to measure foot traffic at grocery establishments. The PhD was forced to admit that the exclusion of grocery stores limited the value of his vaunted study.

“The problem with ‘follow the science’ is that you’re not actually following science but scientists.”

According to an op-ed last week in The New York Times, people should not do as I did. Thinking critically about information from “reputable” sources must not occur; our very democracy depends on curbing the practice.

In “Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole,” BuzzFeed technology writer Charlie Warzel argues that “critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.” Relying on the work of Professor Michael Caulfield of Washington State University, Warzel declares that the traditional belief that people should be “taught to evaluate and think critically about information” is “fundamentally flawed.”

Caulfield insists that people should not be encouraged to “use reasoning,” because “that strategy can completely backfire.” Go by the source, not the information. Good source? Accept the info. Wikipedia-unapproved source? Reject the info. But don’t think about the info.

“People learn to think critically by focusing on something and contemplating it deeply—to follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies. That natural human mind-set is a liability in an attention economy,” Warzel argues. So don’t do it. Don’t look deep. Caulfield’s methodology “focuses on making quick judgments” because “you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more.”

“You often make a better decision with less information than you do with more.” A NYT op-ed actually promoted that idea.

“Spending 15 minutes to determine a single fact in order to decipher a tweet or a piece of news coming from a source you’ve never seen before will often leave you more confused than you were before.” So don’t bother. Warzel makes clear that this rule is not for “reporters” and “researchers” but rather the common folk. The ones affected by the work of “reporters” and “researchers.” And if you haven’t already guessed, that’s the point. Certain people don’t want to be critiqued by commoners.

The past year has seen Americans at the mercy of “researchers” and the reporters who pick and choose which “experts” to champion. Because of researchers, Americans have been locked down, denied schooling, denied work, masked, double-masked, probably soon triple-masked. BLM broke all lockdown rules, so researchers said, “That’s cool, our research proves that their lockdown-breaking helps the pandemic, while yours does not,” and reporters said, “Right on!”

To be fair, much of the scientific research regarding Covid is indeed beyond the ken of non-scientists. And I’d go so far as to say that the biggest problem with the ever-changing recommendations regarding masks, transmissibility, ventilators, etc., is not that the researchers are crooked, but that they’re afraid to admit how little they actually know. Their “trust the science” admonition only harms their own credibility when “the science” changes. “We’re in uncharted waters; bear with us” is a lot better than “TRUST THE SCIENCE, PLEBES!” But the former requires humility, whereas the latter unlocks the God complex lurking beneath most lab coats.

But then you have studies like the one I debunked; studies based not on virus RNA but logical precepts. Popping that balloon required no medical know-how. All it took was to “follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies,” exactly to the word what Warzel and Caulfield don’t want you to do. The reporters who breathlessly hyped the BLM/Covid study could have asked the same pointed questions I did. But they chose not to, because they agreed with the study’s conclusions. The last thing they wanted was for their readers to “think critically.” Better for the unwashed to look at the source not the substance, and make a “quick judgment” with “less information.”

Which brings us to another BLM/Covid study. “Black Lives Matter Protests and COVID-19 Cases: Relationship in Two Databases,” Journal of Public Health, November 2020. Authors Drs. Greg Neyman and William Dalsey of RWJBarnabas Health, the largest health system in N.J.

Neyman and Dalsey examined U.S. counties that experienced BLM protests last summer and compared them with similar-size counties that did not experience protests during the same period. The authors found that counties that witnessed BLM protests saw a “statistically significant” rise in Covid cases in the three weeks following the protests. This contradicts the study I critiqued last week. According to Neyman and Dalsey, not only did the protests not make the pandemic better, they made it worse in protest-affected counties.

But Neyman and Dalsey hedge their bets with this interesting bit of wordplay: While the Covid increase in BLM-affected counties was “statistically significant” compared with the control counties, it was also “societally insignificant.”

What exactly does that mean? I contacted Neyman (the corresponding author) and I asked him, “What did you mean by ‘statistically significant but societally insignificant?’”

His reply? “Thank you for your question. I’m going to loop in my hospital PR department if you don’t mind. Give us a few days to get back to you.”

Okay, sure. I gently reminded him that I had a deadline.

Three days later: “I’m sorry for the delay. I am waiting on a response from my PR department. I recognize that you have a deadline to meet and I’m sorry if I miss it. I am hoping that they will respond by tomorrow if that helps.”

Wait, why does this guy—this MD—need his PR department to answer a question about a term he used in a report he penned?

After three more days of silence, I got blunt:

I’m baffled by your inability (or unwillingness) to answer an exceptionally simple question. You and your co-author referred to the post-BLM protest rise in Covid cases as “statistically significant” but “societally insignificant.” I’m assuming those words came from you and not your “PR department.” Why are you unable to explain your meaning? And how else can I inform my readers of the meaning of those words if not by asking you?

He replied, “I am sorry, I am going to call PR immediately and inquire about the delay.”

Again, why does he need the PR department to help him answer?

And then Neyman sent me this: “I have shared a correction with the publisher as an erratum. The corrected discussion reads, that ‘since approximately 40% of counties where a BLM protest occurred saw a smaller increase in COVID cases at Week 3 than their comparison counties, it is clear that a BLM protest cannot explain a rise in COVID rates.’”

I was confused: “Is the correction/erratum you shared with me intended to answer my question regarding the meaning of ‘statistically significant’ but ‘societally insignificant’ (i.e., will those terms be removed from the study when it’s updated with the correction)?”

Neyman: “Yes, sorry for the confusion. The correction removes the ‘societally insignificant’ line.”

“Statistically significant but societally insignificant” wasn’t a throwaway line. It was the key line in the report’s concluding paragraph, and Neyman removed it and reversed himself regarding his study’s results, all because I asked him to explain the line’s meaning. What gives? Was the original conclusion, that BLM had contributed to a rise in Covid, so “unwanted” that the “societally insignificant” line was thrown in as balm to soothe the blow? But when called on to explain that phrase, Neyman was like, “Ah, screw it, you know what? BLM didn’t contribute to Covid cases after all. Forget what I said before.”

This MD’s scientific conclusion was only firm as long as a guy like me didn’t actually inquire about it.

That ain’t the kind o’ science we oughta be “following.”

Since Neyman still grants that in 60% of the protest counties there was a Covid rise in comparison to the control counties, I asked him the obvious question:

You state that 40% of counties where a BLM protest occurred saw a smaller increase in COVID cases at Week 3 than their comparison counties. Of the counties with BLM protests that you studied, did you factor in which ones had curfews during the week of protests and which didn’t? Counties with curfews often saw an increase in panic buying during reduced supermarket shopping hours (with nighttime shopping curbed, more shoppers were crammed into fewer store hours, resulting in longer lines and more “mixing” in enclosed spaces). Is it possible that curfews had anything to do with whether a county that had BLM protests also experienced a rise in cases? Were curfews factored into your study?

Not every BLM protest led to riots and curfews. If the counties that had BLM protests and experienced a rise in Covid cases in the weeks that followed also had curfews in response to BLM riots and looting, then BLM protests can totally explain the rise in COVID cases in those counties.

Neyman’s response: “I’m sorry, but I did not factor curfews into my analysis, because it was not included in the two datasets that I used to perform the study. As such, I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Ah-ha! Neyman measured BLM protest counties against non-protest counties. He should have measured BLM protest (no-riot/no-curfew) counties against BLM protest (riot/curfew) counties, with non-protest counties as the control.

Maybe then he wouldn’t have had to reverse himself because he got an email from a high school dropout.

The problem with “follow the science” is that you’re not actually following science but scientists—humans with feet of clay. And for a year now we’ve let those clay feet stamp on our lives, our rights, and (as Orwell might say) our faces.

Don’t listen to The New York Times. Stay skeptical, think critically. Focus, contemplate, and use reason.

And reject as a fraud anyone who counsels otherwise.

Saving academia from whiteness appears to be the goal of some black academics. Unlike normal scholars, they are confusing academic research with political activism. The latest black intellectual declaring to purge whiteness from the curriculum is Dan-el Padilla Peralta. Presently based at Princeton, Padilla thinks that the classics should become “a site of contestation for the communities who have been denigrated by it in the past.” He has even taught a course that combines ancient texts with critical race theory and strategies for organizing. Academia is for serious and creative inquiry, but for some strange reason, blacks assume that they should use their position to promote a political agenda.

Politicizing academia is not unique to black scholars. The difference, however, is that they are unable to divorce personal identity from intellectual explorations. This was apparent when Padilla said in a recent interview, “When folks think of classics, I would want them to think about folks of color.” Will blacks ever recognize that academia is not the place to gain sympathy for their feelings? Instead of proving their value as scholars, they have chosen to guilt white people into promoting dubious projects aimed at subverting Western civilization.

A survey of his articles proves that Padilla has the potential to become a leading classicist of his generation. Currently, his field is undergoing a renaissance with scholars like Josiah Ober and Walter Scheidel whose pioneering studies explore institutional development and state capacity in the classical world. Padilla’s latest work Divine Institutions: Religion and Community in the Middle Roman Empire is a critical examination of how religion fostered political unity in the Roman Empire. His deviation from the usual narrative praising statecraft as an explanation for Rome’s political fortunes has earned him the admiration of his peers.

Padilla had the perfect opportunity to indicate that black scholars possess the competence to scrutinize topics other than race. Yet in his widely shared interview with The New York Times, he opted to fixate on racism. Unfortunately, Padilla like several of his colleagues thinks that history must account for past wrongs and as such historical figures ought to be upbraided for their misgivings. They cannot appreciate that history is merely the story of imperfect humans and we can only judge historical characters by the standards peculiar to their time.

“Studying race is not incompatible with preserving the classics.”

Because he is uncomfortable with the vile aspects of classical history, Padilla would prefer to destroy the field by cleansing it of whiteness. Now, Padilla could always use the classical world as an example of what we do not want in our own time. But as an activist, offering insight is not his objective. He prefers using his perch as an influential voice to undermine confidence in the Western canon. Essentially, Padilla’s difficulty is an inability to accept that Western society is a white civilization—so as expected the classics and philosophy will emphasize the stories of white people. Padilla would never tell the Chinese or Japanese to make Asian philosophy more reflective of the black experience, so why does he believe that the Western canon should mirror the worldview of blacks?

Moreover, white academics are quite cosmopolitan in their outlook; scores of them are already examining race in the classical world. In short, studying race is not incompatible with preserving the classics. However, it is evident that the intent of Padilla and others like him is to destroy academia. Apparently, black intellectuals are too emotionally impaired to recover from the fact that their ancestors were once slaves. Therefore, whenever they are appointed to a position of power, their first task is to eviscerate anything built by whites.

Interestingly, this destructive tendency displayed by black scholars was not always pervasive. In the past, black classicists like William Scarborough and Lewis Baxter Moore were interested in race, but they never made blackness the essence of scholarship. There was a clear demarcation between scholarship and activism. Today, however, instead of demonstrating value as a serious academic, more black scholars are pursuing racial activism as a substitute for intellectual innovation.

As a result, we need to save academia, not from whiteness, but from unhinged black scholars. Similarly, Philip Ewell, a black music-theory professor at Hunter College, is complaining that music theory is dominated by white males and marred by racism. His target is the late music theorist Heinrich Schenker. Ewell wants music theorists to confront the racism of Schenker. Schenker’s racism whether real or perceived is immaterial. What matters is that he produced brilliant theories. Ewell is also infuriating because he is suggesting that the paucity of blacks in his field is due to racism, as if white people must be blamed for the appallingly low level of curiosity among blacks.

Regardless of how we feel about the truth, the reality is that on average blacks are incurious. In my own personal experience, I have had to justify why I read nonfiction books for leisure to blacks. Until there is a change in black culture, then blacks will always be underrepresented in areas requiring deep theoretical analyses. People like Padilla and Ewell mistakenly presume that their interests are indicative of the wider black community, though nothing could be further from the truth.

Without a doubt, black academics with the views of Padilla and Ewell will acquire prominence and attain the support of whites. Clearly, mainstream intuitions have already been infected with the incurable disease of black hysteria. So, obviously, serious white people can only save academia from its demise by creating alternative institutions. Failing to save academia from black hysteria may signal the death of the Western intellectual tradition.

The Week’s Most Parthenic, Sirenic, and Pyrogenic Headlines

Beverly Hills has become a kind of trophy to BLM thugs. Ever since the terrorist org began its national campaign of violence and intimidation, “activists” have repeatedly targeted the Westside city with acts of vandalism and harassment.

It’s kind of odd, as Beverly Hills cops haven’t been shooting black people…or any people, for that matter. Also, Beverly Hills isn’t nearly as white as the dimwits of BLM seem to believe (especially if you don’t count Persian Jews as white). And more to the point, Beverly Hills isn’t even in the top ten of wealthiest Southern California enclaves.

But blacks have a penchant for brand-name merchandise, and the Beverly Hills brand is as internationally recognizable as the Gucci, Tiffany’s, and Dolce & Gabbana stores that line Rodeo Drive. Unconcerned about facts and details, BLM sees Beverly Hills as the big kahuna of “white wealth.”

So, again and again, BLM takes a BM on BH. Or at least it tries to. The Beverly Hills PD has a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism…which you’d think shouldn’t stand out as unique in a civilized nation. But unlike so many other U.S. cities, Beverly Hills has no patience for criminals and radicals. When BLM and its “allies” block streets, they get arrested. When they invade residential neighborhoods, they get arrested. But again, that’s what all cops should be doing.

What makes the BHPD truly special is the creative way in which its officers troll the invading scumbags.

One could call Sennett Devermont an ass boil, but ass boils usually dissolve and go away over time. Devermont is old-school BLM; he’s been leading pickets since 2016. He usually targets BH, never for any particular reason beyond “cuz it’s there.” When Philando Castile was killed by a cop in Minnesota, Devermont picketed Beverly Hills. When Michael Brown was justifiably ventilated by a cop in Missouri, Devermont picketed Beverly Hills. And when Keith Lamont Scott was shot by a cop in North Carolina, Devermont picketed Beverly Hills.

Dude ain’t too bright; he seems unable to understand maps and geography.

Devermont has become enough of a nuisance for the officers of the BHPD to get creative in dealing with him. When the human tick engages in his favorite hobby of getting in officers’ faces with his phone while they’re on duty in order to post confrontational videos on social media, the annoyed but wonderfully inventive cops have started playing Beatles songs on their phones…a guaranteed way to get a video kicked off Instagram, because the site’s algorithms automatically catch and remove anything that contains the unauthorized use of copyrighted music (and Beatles songs are legendary when it comes to immediate removal due to unauthorized use).

The tactic’s been working like a charm!

BLM is furious at being outmaneuvered (to be fair, when your organization is about ultra-violence not ultra-smarts, being outmaneuvered shouldn’t come as a surprise). News organs like Vice and Yahoo have condemned the cops’ musical mischief.

Perhaps eventually the higher-ups at BH City Hall will demand that the police quit the trolling. But all good people can take comfort in the fact that an ass boil was lanced and ridiculed by his betters, and in today’s world, small victories like that aren’t really so small.

Rabbi Barry Silver might be the most batshit-insane Jew in the world. Or he might be the world’s greatest performance artist. Rabbi Silver is either the highest of art or the lowest of IQ.

It’s hard to tell, because it’s hard to imagine that a person like this can exist as anything but farce.

Rabbi Silver is the founder of something he calls “Cosmic Judaism.” It’s basically Judaism that rejects the Almighty in favor of leftist politics and Bill Nye “science-as-faith” gobbledygook. In a way, most secular American Jews would likely be considered “Cosmic Jews.” They’re just never stupid enough to say so outright, especially with a self-applied label as idiotic as Silver’s.

The Boynton Beach-based Silver launched his new brand of Judaism last year. As explained in the Sun-Sentinel:

Silver said Cosmic Judaism began with his late father Samuel Silver, a Reform rabbi. “He believed in God, but not the God of the Bible, and preached and wrote in various books that he authored that every concept of Judaism, including God, should be rational and logical, and that God should be thought of as a hypothesis, not a fact,” he said. This new approach is intended to interpret religion through science and will be launched during the synagogue’s High Holiday services.

Thus, Cosmic Judaism replaces God with social justice activism and “leftist science” (“the earth is on fire and there are 563 genders”). In place of psalms and hymns, Silver subjects his congregants to his musical odes to AOC talking points, including this one—a “global warming” song set to “We Are the World”…more proof that this guy is either clinically insane or doing meta-comedy.

After all, nobody likes the original version of that ear-bleeder, let alone an “educational” remake.

“Everyone on the far right is playing Tony Soprano wondering if the Big Pussies have turned.”

Last week, for reasons only he could possibly comprehend, Silver penned an op-ed in the Sun-Sentinel titled “Many Self-Hating Jews Aid Anti-Semitic Conspiracies.” In it, he claims that Jews helped spur the Capitol riot, in a way that, again, makes you ask, “Can this guy possibly be for real?”

What’s surprising is that many right wing Jews have exchanged Jewish ideals for deals and have become strange bedfellows with those who took over the Capitol in the name of Jesus.

Huh? I thought it was in the name of Trump. Oh, wait—Silver accuses Trump of claiming to be Jesus. And for some reason “bad” Jews have aligned with this evil new messiah.

After blaming Jews for the evils in the world, Silver adds, “Thus, it should come as no surprise that today’s Christian Nationalist QAnon conspiracy theory blames the Jews for all the evils in the world.”

Wait, but didn’t he himself just blame…

It’s headache-inducing.

He likens the Capitol rioters to 9/11’s Muslims, writing “Both groups espouse ‘Replacement Theology’ in which their imaginary father in the sky loves them best.” Wotta rabbi, mocking people’s “imaginary father in the sky.” That’s only slightly nuttier than claiming that 9/11 occurred because of Muslim “replacement theology.”

He wraps up by declaring that only “rational discourse and debate” can defeat extremists. A mere paragraph after denigrating the Christian and Muslim “imaginary father in the sky,” he invites members of other faiths to join him for “rational discourse.”

Silver is living proof that people on the left literally get to say anything in the media today. None of that “under a microscope” crap that rightists get from the few mainstream editors who’ll still publish them. But to give the rabid rebbe credit, at least he’s “entertaining insane” instead of “boring insane.”

I hope his cosmic congregants appreciate that, even as they have to endure his attempts at music that make a night with the Auschwitz orchestra seem like a better entertainment option in comparison.

In an unsurprising development, the young geniuses behind all that naughty talk about “cookie monsters” and “ovens” have once again gotten history wrong. It seems that the impish little satyrs on the groyper/alt-right end of the spectrum were obsessing too much about World War II and not enough about recent U.S. history…because heaven forbid those puckish pups focus on something relevant.

Anyone remember that whole “militia movement” craze from the ’90s, that nutty OKC bombing/Montana Freemen/Republic of Texas thing that seemed really popular for a while and then kinda vanished? Well, one reason it vanished was the use of informants and undercover operatives by federal law enforcement.

See, here’s a wee factoid that today’s young groyper kids have likely never learned from the memes that served as their formal political education: The worst thing that happened to the DOJ was the rise in Islamic terror. Filthy brown foreign-tongued Muslims proved a daunting challenge to law enforcement when it came to going undercover and cultivating informants. In 1995, the FBI had 10,000 agents who looked like Tim McVeigh. Sending guys undercover was a cinch. And “turning” militia members was even easier, because the cat and the mouse spoke the same language and shared cultural familiarities. But Muslims? Christ, that was a challenge. Most FBI undercover guys can’t pass for an Akbar, and can’t speak Akbarese. And the problem with recruiting actual Akbars to turn on their brothers is that every now and then they do a double-triple-switcheroo and blow up their handlers, because more than anything Akbars love a good kaboomie.

Kipling said it best:

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The post-9/11 “war on terror” had the feds pining for the days of going after rednecks and mafiosi. You know, white guys whose minds and motivations were more easily known.

Well, thank heavens the far right decided to storm the Capitol! The DOJ couldn’t be happier. Being able to repurpose the war on terror as a war against whiteys has rekindled the FBI’s love of infiltrating and turning. And damned if it isn’t giving the groyper kids premature hair loss.

“FBI Informant Panic Is Ruining Friendships All Over the Far Right” read the headline of a Daily Beast special report last week. The piece paints a rather devastating portrait of a “movement”—the post-Capitol fringe right—whose members are gripped by fear and anxiety over who’s being squeezed by the feds, who’s going to turn, who’s already turned, and who’s an undercover agent. Proud Boys members, rocked by the revelation that one of their supposedly kick-assiest leaders, Enrique Tarrio, was a fed informant, are now fracturing into dozens of subgroups accusing other subgroups of being led by informants.

And groyper “leader” Patrick Casey has openly split with groper golden goy Nick Fuentes over concerns that Fuentes, an apparent target of the feds, is setting up other groypers with his end-of-February “America First” conference in Orlando, which Casey refers to as a “federal honeypot event.”

Casey claims that the FBI has frozen Fuentes’ bank accounts, suggesting that agents are using the money to “persuade” Fuentes to play ball. Those same concerns about feds ’n’ thumbscrews have been voiced regarding arrested groyper stormers “Baked Alaska” and Riley June Williams.

So now everyone on the far right is playing Tony Soprano wondering if the Big Pussies have turned.

It’s hard not to feel a little sympathy for these young patriots, who appear completely unprepared for this complete inevitability.

Don’t blame them; they were lied to by their teachers. The memes never told them it could turn out this way.

12 Years a Slave? More like 3 Musketeers a Slave. Apparently, antislavery chocolate is a thing. And why not? In the U.S., slavery—which ended more than 155 years ago—has become for some odd reason the event that defines all current human endeavors.

Well, to be fair, the reason isn’t odd at all. The New York Times’ 1619 Project—the Manhattan Project of the nation’s black race hustlers and white/Jewish “allies”—has wormed its way into every facet of American life.

Slavery “made” this country (narrator: It didn’t), and all nonblack Americans owe the descendants of slaves and those who resemble the descendants of slaves a perpetual debt (narrator: They don’t).

In her barely readable magnum opus, the 1619 Project’s illiterate hunt-and-pecker Nikole Hannah “Bae” Jones made a big deal about how chocolate is racist. In the world of sweets, chocolate is the Grand Wizard of KKKandy. It’s not just that white people shouldn’t “do violence” to a darker food (i.e., bite a bar of chocolate); it’s that whites only know about chocolate because enslaved Africans had to work cocoa farms without a guaranteed minimum wage of $15 an hour and free unisex tampon distribution centers for men who menstruate.

Those ghastly cocoa-farm conditions persist in West Africa today, so whiteys should feel especially guilty about munching that Mars.

Fortunately, help has arrived! Tony’s Chocolonely is the world’s premier antislavery chocolate bar! A self-proclaimed social justice, pro-BLM chocolate company, Tony’s has pledged to become the first “100% slave-free” chocolate manufacturer. No slaves harvesting the cocoa beans, and “reparations” for the descendants of the slaves who harvested them back in the old days.

One key pillar of the Tony’s philosophy is that chocolate prices should be kept artificially high. The Tony’s website literally instructs retailers to inflate the price of the candy, because a 6.35-oz. chocolate bar that requires a down payment is the key to preventing slavery in cocoa-growing nations.

It’s also the key to pricing chocolate out of the reach of inner-city blacks. Which is certainly kind of ironic (social justice chocolate that excludes blacks).

So, how could a company with such a good and pure vision possibly fail?

What could ever go wrong with such a noble business plan?

Well, the world found the answer to those questions last week, when it was revealed that the Tony’s supply chain includes a company that uses African child slave labor to harvest its cocoa.

Be honest—were you expecting anything less?

Apparently, Tony’s was contracting with a slave-using cocoa manufacturer in order to keep its costs down and pocket more of the profits from those inflated prices.

As social justice orgs drop Tony’s from their list of approved merchants, let’s not be unmindful of the real victims here: the wealthy whites who will now have to find new sources of $40 chocolate bars that make them feel good about themselves, and Nikole Hannah “Bae” Jones, who will have to go back to filling that void in her hateful soul by Oprah-style binge-eating Milky Ways and Krackels.

Remember Bubba Wallace? He’s the black NASCAR driver who got scared silly by a string last year. After mistaking a garage-door pull rope for a “noose,” Wallace cried “hate crime” and the world listened…if by “the world” one means MSNBC and The New York Times. Everyone else just laughed.

Still, the FBI sent nearly two-dozen agents to put the screws to the string. Indeed, the transcript of the interrogation is intense:

FBI Agent: “Fess up: Are you a noose?”
String: “Knot!”
FBI Agent: “Stop jerking us around. Are you a noose?”
String: “Knot! Knot! Knot!”

Sadly, due to post-traumatic stress from the encounter with the rope, the dope blew it last week at Daytona. Wallace came in 17th, prompting The Guardian to complain that racist NASCAR was “not redeemed” (apparently, Wallace is owed a win every time he drives).

However, the news was not all bad in the never-ending fight against things that are not nooses.

Rawiri Waititi is the newly elected coleader of New Zealand’s Maori Party. Last week, he clashed with his fellow parliamentarians over a longstanding rule that male members must wear ties while in the hallowed parliamentary chamber.

A tie? Around the neck? Wait…that must mean it’s a noose!

Actually, that’s not a joke. That’s Waititi’s actual belief, and he stated as much when he flaunted the rule and showed up for work bare-necked and wearing a traditional Maori pendant called a hei tiki, which bears a strong resemblance to fossilized frog road-kill and probably is.

Initially, Waititi was escorted out of the chamber for the dress-code violation, but then he gave a long, rambling warble about the white man’s racism and historical oppression and his ancestors being hanged and how the fearsome specter of nooses haunts his people still, and eventually the other members of Parliament were like, “Oh for fuck’s sake forget the tie if it’ll shut the stupid bastard up.”

In his victory speech, Waititi told the press, “Maori have had enough of being assimilated and forced to do and look like everyone else. We are not like everyone else. We are unique. Being Maori is like having superpowers.”

On the other hand, whites also appear to possess a unique superpower—the ability to tell the difference between a noose and something that is absolutely not a noose.

Should there ever be an all-out Justice League-style war between the two superhero factions, the safe bet will be the side whose members can look at a rope without shitting themselves. Indeed, a few Wonder Woman lassos and the war will be over fairly quickly.

String…the kryptonite of the nonwhite.