The Week’s Funniest, Runniest, and Easter Bunniest Headlines

In early-1900s West L.A., the WASP elites spent their leisure time at the Rancho Country Club golf course. Whites only, except for the Japanese gardeners who routinely blew themselves up to take out gopher nests (today’s Mexicans draw the line at that).

In 1920 two prosperous Jews asked to join the club, but they were turned away by the snooty gentiles. “We don’t need your kind stealing balls and peddling them on the black market.”

“Oy, you do something one time und dey nevah forget.”

Furious, the rejected Jews bought the parcel of land directly across the street and started their own country club/golf course: Hillcrest. Jews only. And it was common for the two groups to heckle each other across Motor Ave.

“I say, kike, how can you swing with a proboscis that throws off your center of gravity?”

“Hey, goy, I hope you take a ball to your schmuckle and a club up your pupik.”

And then (this is true) the gentile club got severely audited by the IRS and closed.

Hebe who laughs last…

Rancho’s been a public course since the 1950s, while Hillcrest is still Jewish.

Though maybe not for long. Hillcrest’s being sued by billionaire Jew Matthew Winnick, who claims he was denied membership because his “wife has Hispanic heritage.” Of course, his wife’s a beautiful white blonde (he’s a Jewish billionaire; what else would she be?), so his suit appears questionable. Also, one of Hillcrest’s longtime members is “second gentleman” Doug Emhoff. And if Hillcrest allows Emhoff’s cackling black/Indian/hyena hybrid of a wife, it’s hard to believe they’d reject Winnick’s.

Maybe Winnick can try the IRS/audit route for his vengeance. It would be “just deserts” for the folks who sand-trapped their competitors a century ago.

The “purple gorilla” campfire tale is a Boy Scout favorite (it’s even included in their manual). A traveler seeks refuge in a creepy mansion. The owner tells him he can stay the night, but with one rule: Down the hall there’s a purple gorilla. Never touch the purple gorilla.

“Never think American elections can’t get more retarded. They always can.”

Never touch the purple gorilla.

As the night wears on, the man becomes increasingly curious. What happens when you touch the purple gorilla? Finally, his curiosity gets the better of him. He walks down the hall and there, indeed, is a giant purple gorilla in a cage. Cautiously, the man reaches out and lightly taps the gorilla on the shoulder. Enraged, the beast bends the bars as if they were straw. The man runs, but every door he closes, the gorilla smashes open. The man flees the mansion, the gorilla close behind. He climbs a fence; the gorilla shatters it with one punch. He tries to hide in a shack, the gorilla knocks it down. Finally, after hours of running, the man collapses, resigned to his fate as the beast bears down on him.

With its massive arms, the gorilla reaches out and taps the man on the shoulder. “Tag—you’re it!”

There’s nothing racial about the story, but leave it to today’s blacks to make it so.

Last week in St. Louis (aka The Kingdom of Blackmurdya), career criminal Laron Frazier had just committed an armed carjacking. Enjoying his stolen ride, Laron saw a MetroBus pass by.

And a Hispanic passenger looked at him.

Never look at Laron!

Frazier proceeded to relentlessly chase the bus, block after block, never letting up. But every time he’d get close to intercepting, traffic would interfere. After a dozen miles, Frazier finally overtook the bus and blocked it with “his” car. Then he stormed the bus, shooting wildly, killing the bean and a bystander.

Tag—you’re hit!

Police said Frazier proudly confessed that he had to give chase because “the victim looked at him the wrong way.”

A tale not for a Scout campfire, but an American dumpster fire.

If you’re walking through San Francisco and you complain about “squatters,” it’s assumed you’re referring to the schizo homeless and Third World detritus who, um, “squat” on the sidewalk to do their business. One cannot walk down a street in S.F. without seeing a “squatter” or two. In Silicon Valley this is used as an incentive to lure cheap Indian labor. Frisco and Calcutta have declared themselves “cistern cities” because the streets are equally flush with waste.

Governor Newsom’s reported to be considering a change to the state flag, removing the grizzly bear (which went extinct in California during the Great Depression after black hobos killed the bears for “looking at them the wrong way”) and replacing it with a pants-down Punjabi, the state’s old motto, “Eureka,” replaced with “You Reek-a.”

But now America’s diverse enrichers are bringing a new kind of “squatting” to the table. Leonel Moreno, a Venezuelan illegal and TikTok “influencer,” gives instructions for other illegals to take advantage of squatters’-rights laws. Moreno, who lives off welfare (which in Venezuela would classify him as “highly skilled”) provides step-by-step advice for seizing the homes of Americans.

Good thing Trump wants to keep TikTok ticking!

As cities across the nation deal with the current epidemic of squatting, perhaps it’s time to fight beans with beans. The U.S. has millions of Mexicans who blow thee leaves for poco dinero, and there’s nothing that ruins a morning more than an army of leaf blowers outside your bedroom window. Also, Mexicans hate Venezuelans. So, a frijole war—Mexicans nonstop blowing leaves outside squatted houses until the chavs hu-GO home to their fetid nation.

Maybe California’s new flag should feature a leaf blower: more fearsome than a bear, ten times as loud, and unlikely to go extinct as long as there are Mexicans needing pesos.

That said, it turns out that the world’s supply of leaf-blowing Mexicans may not be inexhaustible. According to The Lancet, the world’s population has fallen for the first time since the Black Death. And by “black death,” that doesn’t mean the mortality cause of murdered fast-food workers. It means the bubonic plague that felled the earthly population by as much as a third in the 1300s because of the medieval influencer fad of sleeping with flea-infested rats.

The current population drop comes not from disease, but from women not having babies.

And why is that? Let’s ask some formerly overpopulated nations.

Hey, India, could it be that you’ve burned too many brides and sold too many girls into sex slavery while making “death by sepsis” the national pastime?

India’s eyes dart nervously from side to side.

China and Korea, maybe dimorphism is actually a good thing because it’s a way for young men to tell potential procreation partners apart from boy-band emos.

Hey, El Salvador—congrats on ending your crime problem. But the only way you were able to do it was by imprisoning your entire male under-70 population. That might create birth-rate issues.

Still, there’s hope! The Lancet boasts that there are a few nations experiencing a “baby boom”: Chad, Niger, Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, Nigeria, and Uganda.

Yeah, there’s no hope. You know things are bleak when you look back at 1980s “AIDS is going to depopulate Africa” conspiracy theories with a hint of nostalgia and longing.

All’s not well between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Politico, Biden lost his patience with the Israeli leader after he thought that Jews had stolen his bowl of Trix. After being informed by his advisers that Trix is typically stolen by rabbits not rabbis, and in fact Biden had poured the missing bowl of cereal down his shorts mistaking it for Preparation H, the president angrily told his staff, “Listen, Jack…Apple Jacks. That’s what I wanted! Not Trix. Now, who stole my Apple Jacks? Was it that Froot Loops toucan?” he asked, pointing at Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Biden/Netanyahu unkosher beef comes down to Biden wanting Israel to call a ceasefire in Gaza and write off the remaining hostages as collateral damage. “They’re insured, right?” Biden’s reported to have said. “You Jews get rich off insurance scams all the time. Collect the dough and buy a deli or something.”

Of course, Netanyahu isn’t budging, a tragedy for Gaza, which has been experiencing its own population decline owing to the fact that the most popular Gazan accessory for newborns, “Baby’s First Suicide Belt,” often goes off unexpectedly in the crib.

But during these bleak days there’s one proud Palestinian with a bright future: Sirhan Sirhan, convicted assassin of RFK Sr. Turns out presidential candidate RFK Jr. looked at Trump and Biden, two men known for saying dumb things, and declared, “Hold my Ivermectin.” RFK Jr. has chosen as his running mate Nicole Shanahan, millionaire “philanthropist” ex-wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin. Shanahan’s favorite recipient of her millions? L.A. DA George Gascon, a man actively trying to free Sirhan.

Yes, RFK Jr.’s running mate gives millions of dollars to free RFK Sr.’s murderer.

Never think American elections can’t get more retarded. They always can.

Mind you, RFK Jr. is one of those conspiracy guys who thinks Sirhan was framed. But only now has he named the real shooter.

Rosey Grier.

“C’mon,” RFK Jr. rasped to the AP last week. “It was a kitchen. After hours. Who else would be armed in a kitchen and pissed off enough about cold food to start shooting? The fries were frigid. My uncle died for the Cold War, and my dad died for the cold spuds. Those bullets put an end to Yamalot, but I’m here to reignite the flame. Like, literally; Rosey wants some hot fries pronto.”

Sometimes I wonder whether the true aim of modern “progressives”—progress toward what, one is tempted to ask—is to provoke such a strong and even violent reaction among conservatives and old-fashioned liberals that it would retrospectively justify their division of humanity into the woke, which is to say themselves, and the fascists, which is to say everyone else.

Another possible explanation is that they are satirists: that they want to see how far they can fool elites into accepting evident absurdities, thereby exposing those elites for the sheeplike nullities that they are.

With regret, I have come to the conclusion that they are in deadly earnest. I should here point out that earnestness is not the same thing as seriousness, indeed it tends to be destructive of it. Earnestness is to seriousness what sentimentality is to feeling: It is the straining after something that is not authentically felt or believed.

“We are perfectly capable of persuading ourselves that something is so when we know it not to be so.”

In order to persuade himself of the genuineness of his thoughts or feelings, the earnest person has to ramp up the extremity of his views and their expression. Soon throwing soup at a famous painting in a gallery is not enough; it becomes necessary to slash the canvas itself. But there is nothing that better disguises from himself a person’s essential intellectual frivolity or shallowness than his earnestness.

Recently, the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge opined that English landscapes—fields, trees, cows, etc.—could arouse dark nationalistic feelings in those (English) who looked at them, because they might take nationalist pride in that landscape.

Assuming that the English are not for some reason peculiarly susceptible to nationalistic feelings when looking at paintings of the landscape for which they feel a deep affection, the director would seem to be suggesting that landscape is a very dangerous genre, for it is capable of arousing the nationalistic feelings of anyone who comes from the country of the picture. The only safe way to avoid this would be to remove landscapes from all galleries around the world, though it would leave some rather large gaps. Chinese painting, for example, would be virtually annihilated; but this would be a small price to pay to help avoid the dangers of nationalism.

Of course, it is true that the human mind is capable of associating anything with anything else. No doubt by means of a few intermediate steps you can associate an elm tree in an English landscape with the public execution of the Cato Street Conspirators (who wanted to blow up the whole of the British government in the early part of the 19th century). But in order to do so, you have first to be strongly determined to do so. What starts out as an effort becomes a habit, and then a matter of unassailable truth.

The question naturally arises as to whether the Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Luke Syson, actually believes what he says when he claims that looking at an oil sketch of Hampstead Heath, now a large and much-loved open space in the north of London, can be the first step to nationalist storm-trooping, as smoking cannabis is said to be the first step in addiction to heroin or cocaine. The subsidiary, and perhaps more interesting question, is whether it is better or worse if he believes it, or only pretends to do so.

If the latter, he is, of course, a careerist, either advancing his career or protecting his job by the espousal of a ridiculous opinion. If the latter, he is in a sense a victim of the times, for more and more people are required, in order to protect their livelihoods, to mouth absurdities and swear allegiance to an ideology in which they do not believe. They go into what in Nazi Germany was called “inner emigration”—their outer conformist conduct having nothing to do with their inner convictions.

I need hardly point out that inner emigration is a purely personal solution to the dilemma posed by the requirement to adhere to ideological idiocies. If anything, it strengthens the hold of those idiocies when good, intelligent, and cultivated people appear to adhere to them. They give them a respectability that they would not otherwise have; and if celebrities espouse them, celebrity now being the highest form of authority, lesser souls will espouse them in imitation.

But perhaps Mr. Syson actually believes what he said, that there is xenophobia, racism, imperialism, and general bellicosity concealed in Constable’s picture of Hampstead Heath, waiting only for an acute interpreter to perceive them there. Would this be better or worse than if he were a mere careerist who intones fashionable absurdities from fear or ambition? True believers have probably done more harm in the world than cynics, but still we are inclined to allow true believers the merit of probity, albeit probity in a bad cause.

The human mind being so subtle an instrument, it is possible that there is not a stark dichotomy between sincerity and having an eye to the main chance. One of the great advantages of wokeness is that it allows for both at the same time. A person can make a very decent career out of being passionately devoted to a cause, for causes these days pay very well, or can be made to do so. Doing good works and doing well have become entirely compatible.

Without going quite so far as Marx, who made of economic self-interest an epistemological principle, it is surely a fact of human nature or psychology that people tend to believe what it is in their interest to believe. It is in the interest of bureaucracies, for example, to believe that all group differences arise from the operation of prejudice and discrimination, to be corrected by—yes, themselves.

Moreover, once such a belief is adopted, it is defended as desperately as any population defends its city from a siege. How many of us give up a belief the first time we hear a valid argument against it? This is so even when nothing much is at stake, let alone when there is something as important as a livelihood.

Therefore, we are perfectly capable of persuading ourselves that something is so when we know it not to be so. Unfortunately, this seems to me more and more necessary for people to make any kind of career in the modern world.

Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Ramses: A Memoir, published by New English Review.

What if you come home and find strangers living in your house?

I assumed you order the squatters out, and if they resist, call the police, and they will kick them out.


Pro-tenant laws passed by anti-capitalist politicians now protect squatters. If a squatter just lies about having a lease, the police won’t intervene.

“It’s a civil matter,” they’ll say. “Sort it out in court.”

Great. Court might cost $20,000. Or more. And courts are so slow, eviction might take years.

In my state, New York, homeowners can’t even shut of utilities to try to get the squatter out. That’s illegal. Worse, once a squatter has been there 30 days, they are legally considered a tenant.

“They listen to silly people like Marxist New School professor Miguel Robles-Duran, who calls landlords “parasites” who “provide no social value.””

This month, NYC police arrested a homeowner for “unlawful eviction” after she changed locks, trying to get rid a squatter.

“Squatter rights,” also known as “adverse possession” laws, now exist in all 50 states. As a result, evicting a squatter legally is so expensive and cumbersome that some people simply walk away from their homes!

Flash Shelton may have a better idea.

His mom wanted to sell their house after his dad died. But while they were selling it, squatters moved in.

Shelton did what I would have done — called the police. But the police said there was nothing they could do.

So he tried a new tactic: out-squat the squatter.

“I just felt, if they can take a house, I can take a house,” Shelton says in my new video. “I could go in as the squatter myself, (and) gain possession of the property.”

When the home invader left for a few hours, Shelton went in and changed the locks. Only then did the squatters leave.

Now Shelton’s started a business,, where he tries to help others get their houses back.

“People think of squatters as homeless, destitute,” I say.

“They are not homeless,” answers Shelton. “They’re criminals … people taking advantage of the system.

In fact, one squatter he pushed out was Adam Fleischman, who started the Umami Burger restaurant chain. Fleischman told Shelton, “I’m a victim here.” He even called the cops.

“He felt that since he had possession of the house,” says Shelton, “That he had the right to call law enforcement and have me removed.”

I tried to reach Fleischman to hear his side of the story. No luck.

“Where does he hear that he has this right to squat?” I ask Shelton.

“The city was telling him this,” says Shelton.

But now Shelton was a squatter, too, so he was protected by the same pro-“tenant” law.

Still, only when Shelton threatened to bring friends to the house as backup did Adam Fleischman leave.

In Los Angeles, a woman claimed to be a “caretaker” for an elderly homeowner, who said she didn’t want the woman in her home. So, she gave Shelton a lease. While the squatter was out, Shelton changed the locks.

“But the squatter is still there?” I ask Shelton.

“Still there,” he says, “Climbing through the window because she doesn’t have access to the main house.”

She’s now been there for two years!

Shelton says his team will move in and get rid of the squatter.

“How do you know that will work?” I ask.

“Because once I take possession,” says Shelton, “Then she’ll have to fight in court to try to get back in. Most likely she won’t do that.”

Why do squatters feel entitled to other people’s property?

Probably because people hate landlords. They listen to silly people like Marxist New School professor Miguel Robles-Duran, who calls landlords “parasites” who “provide no social value.” Popular TikTok socialist Madeline Pendleton adds that landlords have “guaranteed forever incomes, without having to put in any labor.”

No labor? Who does she think buys the land; pays lawyers to decipher the excessive regulations; hires architects, carpenters, plumbers and electricians; pays the taxes; manages the property, etc.?

It’s infuriating!

I’m glad people like Flash Shelton fight back.

I don’t think I could have chosen a better or more appropriate metaphor for the abject disastrous state that this nation finds itself mired in than what happened this past Tuesday morning in Baltimore. And the cherry on top of this parfait of flaming horse dung—a sack of which, appropriately enough, was delivered in the wee small hours to the doorstep of the ideologically blinkered, inept, partisan junta apparatchik Jake Sullivan, treated as and currently being investigated as a potential act of (get this) terrorism—were the comments by vegetable-in-chief Joey “Sponge-Brain Sh*ts-Pants” Biden:

“At about 1:30, a container ship struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which I’ve been over many, many times commuting from the state of Delaware either on a train or by car,” he said. “I’ve been to Baltimore Harbor many times. And the bridge collapsed, sending several people and vehicles into the water—into the river.”

It’s a cute story, but the Francis Scott Key Bridge doesn’t have any tracks on it—just two lanes for car traffic in each direction. So despite what he claims, Biden never once took the train over that bridge. So the big question is, why would he say that? Biden’s commuting habits have long been a part of his political mythology, as he reportedly commuted from his home in Delaware to Washington, D.C. via Amtrak daily during his years in the U.S. Senate… Yada, yada, yada.

“The more I think about it, the more this thing stinks to high heaven.”

In truth, I wouldn’t doubt that he probably crossed the bridge more than once in his life, but his desperate need to insert himself into the tragedy caused him to once again embellish his life story with falsehoods.

Forget dementia. Joe Biden’s entire résumé consists of things he has been at the very least embellishing or indeed outright lying about. One of the most egregious is his claim that in his youth he was a central figure in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Well, from a certain perspective, one could consider this to be, in fact, true. As his political career was starting, he became close personal friends with some of the Dixiecrat/Democrats’ most virulent racialist opponents of the civil rights movement, such as Robert “Sheets” Byrd, John Stennis, Herman Talmadge, James O. Eastland, and George Wallace, among others. Not only has he never renounced those individuals, nor even simply their repulsive beliefs, to this day he looks upon them wistfully as “Deep personal relationships.”

Or is he lying about that? No, Joe Biden doesn’t insert himself into a tragedy because of mere egomania. If I wanted to dip a toe into psychoanalysis, I’d say it’s perhaps to assuage deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, given the facts of a life of underwhelming mediocrity (although, next to the Clintons, his 50-plus-year career of selling every office he ever held, and the safety and security of the citizenry, for hundreds of millions of dollars is indeed a standout performance). Dementia aside, and for sure as his brain continues to melt on an almost hourly basis now that does play a growing role as fabulist numero uno, he puts himself in the middle of events both for personal and political gain. Just like every other uni-testicular and/or shrill, barren, spinster leftist, despot, and tyrant (but I repeat myself) has done since time immemorial.

Huge tip of the hat to the genius who coined the phrase “Munchausen’s by Progressivism.” Every problem, tragedy, and disaster that has ever befallen the American people is either 100 percent the fault of, or exacerbated by orders of magnitude by, leftists, socialists, progressives, and their main entity, the Democrat Party. It is the sine qua non of my political philosophy. Any discussion about retail politics, candidates, personalities, and suchlike is secondary. Knowing what we know about the Democrat Left is now, at least for me, the only factor in weighing who and what to vote for, and for sure, against, regardless of the vicissitudes of rigged elections and the sellout proclivities of RINOs.

Back to the initial gravamen of my discourse vis-à-vis the bridge, as well as the ideologically driven incompetence that has seriously rotted out the infrastructure of our society, the nagging suspicion that this couldn’t have been merely an accident is gnawing at me. The reason? The FBI is immediately ruling out what happened as deliberate:

Special agent Bill DelBagno of the FBI’s Baltimore field office agreed, saying, “The FBI on very first looking at and assessing this matter from an investigative standpoint, I want to be clear there is no specific or credible information to suggest there are ties to terrorism in this incident.”

“As the investigation goes on we will take it to its logical conclusion along with our partners. To the people of Baltimore, I ask you to be patient as we go through this and as information becomes available to us.”

This is the same FBI, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DOJ which in and of itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of the anti-American Left and Democrat Party, that along with the CIA and the media fabricated the so-called Steele Dossier as proof that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election.

The same FBI/DOJ that actively participated in fabricating and pushing an “insurrection” narrative of the events of January 6th, 2021, to destroy not only Trump but any average citizen who was in D.C. that day merely exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

The same FBI/DOJ that has failed in preventing at least a dozen terrorist attacks since and of course including 9/11/01, yet is hell-bent for leather to declare statistically nonexistent “white supremacists” as well as climate change our greatest threat to national security.

The same FBI/DOJ that actively targets parents at school board meetings and peaceful protesters in front of abortion mills as the real terrorists. And on and on and on. And now, this FBI/DOJ is treating horse manure placed on Jake Sullivan’s doorstep as a serious act of terrorism. Wow.

The more I think about it, the more this thing stinks to high heaven (the bridge collapse, not Sullivan’s “travails”). With a statement like that from this DelBagno flunky, there is no way in hell the FBI and by extension the junta will ever backtrack. As time goes on, I suspect a cover-up will be in full effect, especially as November looms ever closer:

The courageous investigative journalist Lara Logan revealed that according to “multiple intel sources,” the destruction of the bridge was an “‘absolutely brilliant strategic attack’ on US critical infrastructure—most likely cyber—& our intel agencies know it.”

…Logan listed some of the ways in which the collapse of the bridge would hurt the nation, and thus aid our enemies: “Second busiest strategic roadway in the nation for hazardous material now down for 4-5 years—which is how long they say it will take to recover. Bridge was built specifically to move hazardous material—fuel, diesel, propane gas, nitrogen, highly flammable materials, chemicals and oversized cargo that cannot fit in the tunnels—that supply chain now crippled.”… The attack, she added, was “perfectly targeted.”

…[General Michael Flynn] said “This is a BLACK SWAN event. Black swans normally come out of the world of finance (not military). The standard operating procedures for all U.S. ports, harbors, and bays that transit commerce and military activities are supposed to maintain an incredible level of discipline, rigor and awareness for these very type events to not occur (ever!), yet here we are. There are harbor masters for every single one of these transit points in America that are in charge of assuring the safety of navigation…start there.” A black swan event is an unforeseen incident that has massive repercussions….

…Yes, it has come to this: our government, intelligence and law enforcement officials are so untrustworthy that if they say an incident is not terrorism, it very likely is. The collision of the ship with the Francis Scott Key Bridge could end up being a testimony to the fecklessness and incompetence of local officials and the others involved, which is born of far too much time and money being squandered on Critical Race Theory, gender madness and the like, instead of on training competent personnel. Whether or not the destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge really was a terror attack, it will certainly weaken the nation, and in that it benefits the enemies of the United States.

Robert Spencer is dead right about that. But his statement introduces a very frightening possibility that cannot be ignored; that those who now control our government, the criminal justice system, the media, and who are now the sole arbiters of right and wrong, and really good and evil, are themselves the greatest enemy of the United States. Far more than even Islam, the ChiComs, and the globalists. Probably because to one extent or another, they share the same goal: the destruction of America and nearly 2,000 years of societal and civilizational advancement from tyranny to individual liberty. If they achieve that goal by rotting our culture out from within, working in league with our mortal enemies or some combination of both, the end result is the same.

“American exceptionalism” is not a boast of superiority, declaring we’re ubermenschen, but that our government and society as it was founded and intended was the exception to all others that came before it. One that was based on the “revolutionary” notion of putting the individual at the top of the heap and a government that was limited in its scope and power, to guarantee and safeguard the rights and liberties of the individual citizen.

We sure as hell aren’t that now, and haven’t been that way for a long time. And now because of a combination of factors, the illusion “that our flag was still there” has been completely exploded. The actions of the junta against We The People are undeniable. We’re still enough of a threat to them, electoral and judicial shenanigans notwithstanding, by our mere presence that they have no compunction to resort “by any means necessary” whatsoever in preventing us from even trying to reverse course.

For those who know, because of twelve or more years of brainwashing via American academia, what the words “that our flag was still there” mean, it’s a line from the National Anthem, based on a poem written by Francis Scott Key, for whom the ruins of the now smashed and shattered bridge was named after.

I assume that when, or even if, it is ever rebuilt, it will be named “The Beau Biden/Big Guy Helluva Thing.” That or whatever anti-American communist, Islamic, transexual pervert du jour they can come up with. And the 10 percent they can come up with for said Big Guy to make it happen.

I’m betting it’ll be the “Allahu Akbar Kill the Yids Bridge to Paradise.” No doubt designed by a graduate from the Claudine Gay School of Engineering. Maybe even Ahmed Mohamed, the ninth grader from Dallas who built a clock for his science project!

Of course it will be rigged to explode on a Jewish holiday or a 9/11 anniversary—so they can blame Israel.

I’m excited to announce a new acquisition for my New York Times museum! It’s an article from the March 24 edition titled, “What Would Make the Subway Feel Safer? Experts Have 5 Suggestions.”

Appropriating from mid-20th-century works, when the streets ran with blood, none of the “experts” suggested locking criminals up. (Studies show that DOESN’T WORK.) Encouragingly, only two experts suggested making subways safer by reducing their carbon footprint.

The motif of the work is the idea that District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s declared refusal to prosecute offenders for any but the most infamous crimes — such as murder or overstating the valuation of property in a bank loan application — has had no effect on criminals.

Only the public’s “perception” of crime has changed.

“We won’t be safe from psychopaths in the subway until we’re rid of the psychopaths in the D.A.s’ offices.”


— “[S]ome New Yorkers [are] on edge.”

— “Gov. Kathy Hochul deployed National Guard members … to make riders feel safe.”

— News about subway crime “undermined officials’ message, supported by data, that the subway is safe.” Plus, it ruined the surprise for subway riders who were later assaulted, raped or murdered.

Thus, the experts’ ideas were not aimed at actually reducing crime — which to be fair, is impossible if you’re not allowed to put criminals in prison — but to “ease riders’ fears about the subway.”

Isn’t that the worst of all possible worlds? The subway won’t be any safer, but will feel safer, so you’ll let your guard down.

One big idea for giving passengers a false sense of security is: Increase lighting! Or, as subway rapists sometimes call it, “mood lighting.” The Times optimistically reports that the MTA has already announced that it will “convert all 150,000 fluorescent light fixtures in the system to LED lighting.” Of course, considering how well the MTA maintains its platform cameras, the conversion should be completed around the year 2067. (April 2022 headline: “Questions raised on why NYC subway cameras didn’t work during mass shooting.”)

On the other hand, lighting has done absolutely nothing to impede violent crazies, as evidenced by the vast collection of well-lit videos showing monstrous crimes being committed on the subway. The last video I saw of an Asian man being punched and choked on a subway was so well-shot it could have been nominated for best cinematography.

Other nominees include:

— Video of a psychopath attempting to rape a woman on a Lexington Avenue subway platform at 11 a.m. one Saturday.

— Video of a psychopath smashing human feces into a woman’s face at a Bronx subway station.

— Video of a psychopath punching and kicking a woman in the face at a subway stop in Jamaica Queens (leaving her blind in one eye).

— Multiple videos of psychopaths shoving bystanders onto the train tracks — in the Bronx, at the Times Square station, at the Union Square station, at the Hunter College station, at the 53rd and Fifth Avenue station, etc.

Thanks to the well-lit videos, the suspects are usually apprehended within hours, as soon as facial recognition software connects them to their previous mugshots. (The phrase “previous mugshots” is a big, juicy clue if you’re tackling the “how to stop crime” video challenge.)

For example, the broad-daylight rapist had already been arrested at least 14 times. Each time, D.A. Bragg simply let him go. The feces assailant had a slew of arrests for assault, theft and hate crimes, but the Bronx D.A., Darcel Clark, also kept unleashing him on the public for more rollicking fun.

The Times Square subway shover has racked up a half-dozen prior arrests for things like beating and kicking a 57-year-old woman in the face, scratching a woman in the eye, stealing a woman’s cellphone, repeatedly punching an 18-year-old woman in the face and biting her. Released, released, released, sentenced to death and released again. (One of those is fake.)

Just this Monday, a 52-year-old man was stabbed in the neck on a J train; a 21-year-old woman was stabbed at the Franklin Avenue station; and, at 7 p.m., a 54-year-old man was killed at the 125th Street station after being pushed onto the tracks of an incoming subway train by career criminal Carlton McPherson. Odd that government officials are having trouble easing riders’ fears about the subway. Maybe if they gave out tote bags with slogans like, “Boy, are subways getting safer all the time now or what?”

Having soft-launched his one-man crime wave as a teenager, McPherson has numerous prior arrests for assault, fare evasion and burglary. (These are all legal in New York.) His latest arrest was a mere six months ago. He was due back in court in July, which I’m sure he had marked carefully in his Palm Pilot.

Unless it’s rape or murder, New York City is determined to get criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. The only way to make this clearer to criminals would be to literally install actual revolving doors at the entrance to every police precinct and courthouse.

Another expert, Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, interim dean at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs, suggested that New York “strengthen gun checks” and suggested using “sensors” to detect guns.

It doesn’t take a gun to push someone in front of an oncoming train, but on the other hand, there have already been seven shootings on the subway so far this year — and we’re not even three months in.

Unfortunately, there are no magical “sensors” to detect guns, except the ones that exist in police officers’ heads.

As explained by Mayor Michael Bloomberg about a year after he’d left office, having driven the crime rate in New York City to unimaginable lows:

“People say, ‘Oh, my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.

“And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

But we can’t do that anymore, because it would be “racist.”

[Trump’s response to Bloomberg’s statement of the obvious: “WOW, BLOOMBERG IS A TOTAL RACIST!” Trump’s black vote in the 2020 election: 8%.]

The Times, being the Times, formulated a trick question for the experts. How do you solve a problem after we’ve ruled every plausible solution “racist”?

Other ideas from “experts” consisted of doing exactly what we’re doing now, but harder. Specifically: Be even nicer to criminals and blame the victims. Passengers should be more alert! Also, it’s not enough to release suspects — give them a hug and a juice box, too.

The only expert interviewed by the Times who had any remotely relevant experience was Dorothy Schulz, a retired captain with the Metro-North Police. Not surprisingly, her solution was the same as Bloomberg’s, delivered without the vivid imagery. Position officers at subway turnstiles, she said, and frisk every fare-beater. “You’ll pick up a lot of weapons and a lot of people with warrants.”

That will get the guns and knives out of the subway, but not the rapists, the violent assailants, the shovers and the feces-throwers (except maybe for an hour, before the prosecutor cheerfully releases them). We won’t be safe from psychopaths in the subway until we’re rid of the psychopaths in the D.A.s’ offices.

But at least passengers in New York’s well-lit subways will feel safer. Right up until the moment they’re assaulted, raped, murdered or, God willing, just smeared with human feces. All aboard!

I’ve never had much use for diplomats, nor did my father, who called them gigolos and freeloaders living high on the hog off taxpayers like him. “Except for George Kennan,” I used to tell him, and Dad would reluctantly agree. For any of you young whippersnappers unfamiliar with George Kennan, he was the author of America’s Cold War policy of “containment,” in which the U.S. would try to constrain the expansion of communism after World War II without confronting a nuclear Soviet Union directly. In a famous Long Telegram as America’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, Kennan articulated his containment policy in 1946 and in subsequent pseudonymous articles in Foreign Affairs. The idea made him famous among those who wanted peace with the Russian Bear, and even with warmongers who were aware of the price a nuclear war would cost.

George Kennan died at age 105, depriving us of his conclusions about Western involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Kennan held a fascination for the Russian language and culture, and thought of the modernity of his native America “the world’s spiritual and intellectual dunce.” Kennan’s unorthodox view of the Cold War showed great wisdom and restraint, and if anyone’s opinion is badly needed nowadays, it is his. (Another trait I greatly admired was Kennan’s unrelenting womanizing, as well as his ability to stay happily married for over sixty years.)

“The world is closer to a nuclear confrontation than it has been in decades, and with it the potential for billions to perish.”

How badly needed is a Kennan view regarding Russia today? The answer is: very, very badly. Let’s begin with the worst scenario, a nuclear confrontation. The world is closer to one than it has been in decades, and with it the potential for billions to perish. Just think of it, billions of human beings are roasted in a massive fireball in heat so intense that concrete surfaces explode, metal evaporates, and humans convert into carbon. The heat is millions of degrees hotter than the center of the sun. And yet we keep arming Zelensky, Macron the warrior is thinking of sending troops to fight the Russkies, and Putin sits back knowing full well that if pushed beyond a certain point he will not hesitate to you-know-what. Over on our side I think of the brain-dead race-hustling Kamala; Biden, the elderly used-car salesman; and then of my two children and four grandchildren—and I lose sleep. Our government rushed us into the nuclear age without giving extensive thought to whether this would end human civilization. Until today humanity has been lucky, no one has attempted to nuke an enemy; but now we are pressing our luck.

So here I am, sitting in my Park Avenue flat thinking of what might go up in smoke—Budapest in the spring, lovers on the banks of the Seine, golden skyscrapers on Fifth Avenue, the Lincoln Memorial in D.C.—and blaming poor old Uncle Sam for the carnage in Ukraine instead of the bad old bald guy Putin. Well, although you might not like it, let me try: The good uncle bears significant responsibility for U.S.-Russian relations, now scraping the bottom of Cold War hostility. Deluded by post-Soviet weakness, the good Uncle Sam grew oblivious to Russia’s sense of its historical self: Russia has a deeply ingrained self-perception as a great power, coupled with a great insecurity over its long and mostly indefensible borders. Post–Cold War American administrations aspired to transform Russia into a free-market democracy. What took place, instead, was a kleptocracy under Yeltsin in which some Americans made a bundle until Putin finally put his foot down.

The problem was that George Baker, secretary of state under George Bush—and a decent and honest civil servant—had promised Gorbachev that NATO would not “move one inch eastward” if Gorby played ball while dismantling the Soviet Union. Well, Baker’s successors have managed to move more than an inch eastward and now surround Russia’s western borders.

The other important stumbling block in the Uncle Sam versus the Russian Bear contest is the absolute refusal of American governments to understand or agree to Russia’s aspirations. During the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Tsar Alexander and Russia dominated the proceedings, and only the wiles of Metternich and Talleyrand managed to keep him from turning Poland into a Russian province and along with that large parts of Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian empire.

More than 200 years later, American politicians and diplomats view Russia as a lumbering, way-past-it small power, forgetting that Putin can blow us up probably more so than we can blow him up. Russia’s autocratic regime is natural, Russians have never tasted real democracy, and perhaps that is why they love their country more than we do. But that’s no reason not to enjoy constructive relations with us, nor need we be impeccable foes.

Back in 2008, William Burns wrote to the State Department as ambassador to Moscow that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russians and for Putin.” What was America’s response? The America that had invaded the Middle East three times in the last thirty years? Total dismissal. Saddam turned out to be a pussy without a nuke; Putin is no pussy and has lotsa nukes. You the readers make up your mind and tell the geniuses in D.C. to stop the bull and tell Zelensky to start talking.

My anthology Noticing is coming out in paperback this week from Passage Press for $29.95.

Please buy it.

Also, I’m continuing my book tour with a speaking event in Los Angeles this Friday evening, before stops in Austin, New College in Sarasota, Fla., the West Virginia exurbs of Washington, D.C., and New York City.

Here are my public speaking engagements (usual ticket price $45):

Friday, March 29, 2024: Los Angeles
Friday, April 12, 2024: Austin
Tuesday, April 23, 2024: Sarasota, Fla.
Friday, May 3, 2024: New York City (may be sold out)

And here are Frequently Asked Questions about my book:

Q. Where are you speaking in Los Angeles this Friday evening?

A. In central Los Angeles near multiple freeways, i.e., not in Santa Monica or Pasadena.

Q. Yes, but where?

A. When you buy a ticket and prove you aren’t some violent Antifa maniac who hates the First Amendment, you’ll be informed of the precise address by email.

Q. Wait a minute: Are you concerned about criminal violence and are taking precautions against it?

“There are advantages to buying Noticing over randomly reading me online: We picked out my best stuff.”

A. Of course. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s 21st-century America. Similarly, in April I’ll be speaking at the VDARE spring conference at the Brimelows’ fortified compound in West Virginia in the exurbs of Washington, D.C.

Q. Great! When is that?

A. Well, that’s a secret. You see, in contrast to Passage Press, where they tell you up front the date but not the address, VDARE tells you the address but not the date. It’s in their Castle 80 miles northwest of Dulles airport. But they won’t tell you when it is until you’ve contacted them and proved your bona fides.

Q. That’s insane that your sponsors need to keep secret when or where you are speaking! What kind of country are we living in where an insightful public intellectual like yourself can’t give a speech without these kinds of elaborate precautions against totalitarian thugs?

A. A screwed-up one, obviously. For example, if you read my works, such as—have I mentioned?—my new collection Noticing: An Essential Steve Sailer Reader: 1973–2023, you will notice that I am perhaps America’s most thoughtful and public-spirited essayist. But that, precisely, is what drives proponents of the conventional wisdom wild with rage. They can’t out-argue me, so they try to out-threaten me.

The notion that an author on his book tour must be the Bad Guy while the goons threatening me with violence must be the Good Guys—after all, why would violence-loving ideological fanatics threaten to do me violence if not for my evilness?—is, of course, nuts. But hey, it’s the 2020s, so what are you going to do?

Q. Will there be a digital version of Noticing?

A. No. The publishers love books as physical objects, which is why they lavish so much care in designing and making them. Conversely, they are bored by and disdainful of virtual books. And after a brief fad for ebooks when they were first introduced, the market has largely come to agree with my purist publishers (except for romance novels, where digital dominates), with about seven out of eight nonfiction books now sold being traditional rather than digital.

Q. Will there be an audio version?

A. Hopefully. If the paperback sells well, we’ll likely do a version you can listen to in the car and on the treadmill.

Q. Wait a minute, I thought you said Passage Publishing loves physical books.

A. Well, I’d guess that an audio book is so different from a traditional book that it justifies itself (although it’s also not a priority).

Presumably, I’d do the narration myself because I know what’s sarcasm, what’s a joke, and so forth. On the other hand, I seldom listen to audiobooks myself, so I would have to study up on the tricks of the trade employed by expert professionals. People who narrate books for a living are much better at it than I am at present. Therefore, all this is still tentative and a ways off.

Q. How is the expensive hardcover selling?

A. Surprisingly well. The lavish leather-bound hardcover edition came out late last year for $395(!), and they have already sold a sizable majority of the 500 copies printed.

Passage Press is the result of a merger between two start-up publishers with different orientations: one toward making fine physical books, one toward publishing fine authors who aren’t getting published elsewhere. So they came up with a business model of publishing a lovely hardcover at an eyebrow-raising price and then publishing a well-made paperback at a not cheap but also not unreasonable price.

Q. Why should I pay for a Steve Sailer greatest-hits collection when most of the material in the book once appeared on the internet for free and much of it is still out there somewhere?

A. Good question. While I could point out that some of the text is not available on the internet and other essays are increasingly hard to find due to the decline of Google and Bing, in truth, the answer seems to be mostly a personal one.

For example, at the opening of my book tour at a dinner party in the mountains above Malibu, guests—all buyers of the exorbitantly priced hardback—seemed to get a kick out of competing over who had been reading me longest, with the winning date being way back in 1997.

Q. So, if they’d been reading you for up to 27 years, why would they buy a book of your essays for $29.95, much less for $395?

A. A lot of people seem to really like books. I can’t blame them: The spread of books is likely why the last 575 years have been a whole lot better than the 575 years before then.

The fact that you can keep a book without fear that the powerful will suddenly delete it from your electronic device is appealing. As T.S. Eliot summed up:

These fragments I have shored against my ruins

Or, you can read Noticing in bed with all your glowing screens turned off, and with less of an urge than when online to check Twitter to see if somebody is wrong on the internet.


Okay, several people on the WWW were wrong, but I’ve now set them straight.

Problem solved!

Where were we? Oh, yeah, some people like owning books that can’t be deleted. Others don’t care.

And some people like reading books without being distracted by X or whatever Twitter is currently called.

Also, you can give Noticing to somebody. For instance, if you’ve been telling your nephew for years that perhaps I’m onto something, giving him a copy of my anthology puts the onus on him to either notice all the ideas I’ve come up with over the decades or to admit that he hasn’t read your gift.

Seriously, Noticing makes a good graduation gift.

And there are advantages to buying Noticing over randomly reading me online: We picked out my best stuff.

For example, even at 468 pages, there was only room for one movie review. But, then again, it’s the movie I’ve probably thought the hardest about over the past half century, and in my review of it two weeks after 9/11, I accurately predicted both the victorious short-term and disastrous long-term course of a major American war. Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael were good reviewers, but how often did they accomplish that?

The editorial selections tend to be weighted toward my seminal works from, say, 1994 to 2006 (which are often not easy to find online these days) to give a sense of my development as a thinker.

Q. What are you going to do for your next book?

A. I don’t know. There are several options. I’d like your opinions.

For example, I could do a Volume 2 of Noticing: My Next Best Stuff. While that may sound pretty dire, I’ve actually written a lot of good things over the decades, so a collection of my less than most fundamental works would be, on average, close to as high quality as my current book. A Volume 2 wouldn’t be quite as fundamental as the new book—have I mentioned that the current book that you can order right now for $29.95 is awfully good?—but it would be one of the better books of 2025.

Or I could do an anthology of my essays oriented toward a particular topic, such as movies or sports or the Great Awokening.

What would you pay $31.95 for in 2025?

Or I could write a book of new material on a topic such as the Grand Strategy of the Democratic Party.

But writing original prose sounds like hard work.

Q. Does anybody else like your new book?

A. Yes. For example, Tucker Carlson wrote:

If the meritocracy were real, Steve Sailer would be one of the most famous writers in the world. Someday, historians will revere him. In the meantime, read this book.

Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, noted:

I have been reading Steve Sailer for more than twenty years. He is that rare columnist who tells you things you need to know, prompts you to rethink your positions, and has a long record of being right on the big issues. I hope Noticing introduces him to the broader audience he deserves.

Anna Khachiyan, cohost of Red Scare, blurbs:

If I had my way, Steve Sailer would be a household name. Now that his greatest hits are finally under one roof, it’s easier than ever to imagine a reality where he is.

British opinion journalist Ed West explains:

Who is this Steve Sailer? I’ve certainly never read this controversial writer with his “human biodiversity” theories which I’m sure I completely condemn. Please don’t destroy my career!

Sailer is probably the most influential conservative thinker that most of you haven’t heard of, or at least pretend you haven’t heard of. All the best writers read and absorb his ideas, and he is the figure who most comes up at the more intellectual gatherings of conservatives.

Sailer has consistently produced interesting content down the years, and is not afraid—I mean, that’s an understatement—to explore any theory. In this sense he comes from the finest tradition of independent-minded Anglo-American free inquiry, even if he is unfortunate that he lives in an age where his ideas are most offensive. Most of all what I like about Sailer is that he’s interested in knowing stuff, because knowing things is fun and interesting.

His political views are probably a huge hindrance to financial and career success, and yet he has treated the most obvious dishonesty from opponents, and the enrichment of ideological drones and frauds, with good humour, all in a way in which Rudyard Kipling would have approved.

Razib Khan writes:

It is hard not to notice that Steve Sailer is like the dark matter of American punditry; present only through influence.

Scott Greer:

In a world where we’re not supposed to notice obvious truths, Steve Sailer made his career uncovering this forbidden knowledge in workman-like style. Noticing presents Sailer at his best, arguing for inconvenient facts with data, common sense, and wit. It’s a must-read for those with the eyes to see the real nature of modern America.

Bo Winegard of Aporia:

Steve Sailer is easily one of the most influential modern thinkers, which is remarkable given that he is constantly calumnied by the mainstream press and other activists. “Noticing,” a bountiful book of Steve’s best essays, is a reminder to all of us who write about human biological diversity: When you think you’ve had an original thought, check Steve’s writings because he probably had it first. Written with clarity and panache, each of the essays is a small treasure; and the book is a veritable trove. Anybody who wants to understand the modern world should read it. Then start noticing.

J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern U., articulates:

Since the 1990s Steve Sailor has noticed and written about a greater number of interesting and important things than almost any tenured social scientist. Make that most university social science departments. Through it all, he has engaged his nemesis—the War on Noticing—with admirable alacrity. In so many fraught arenas he has earned the right to say: “I told you so.” That is one way to read this volume, but Sailor would likely prefer elevations in honest observation and reasoning. Noticing includes some classics that inspired me, such as “Why Lesbians Aren’t Gay.” Enjoy.

Charlie Kirk enthuses:

In modern America, there is no greater offense than the crime of “noticing,” and no man has been a more prolific offender than Steve Sailer. If you don’t read Steve, then you don’t know how America actually works.

John Derbyshire:

Collected from thirty years of Steve Sailer’s print and online commentary, here is realism about human nature and human society from the keyboard of a first-class quantitative journalist expressing himself with clarity, vigor, and wit. All who resent the tyranny of wishful thinking and academic log-rolling in the human sciences should own this book.

Helen Andrews:

Steve Sailer is a friendly guide to the most contentious topics of our time. The way he has maintained his cheerful good humor for decades while the rest of the world has gone crazy—and craziest of all on the subjects he knows best—is amazing.

So, a whole lot of smart people like my compendium, which—have I mentioned?—you can now purchase for $29.95.

Race sentimentalism is a favorite topic of mine. Having attended majority-black L.A. public schools in the 1980s, and having lived the best years of my life while doing so, I myself am prone to sentimentalism regarding black/white relations, especially after a few drinks (i.e., every waking moment of my day).

Whether it’s mainstream conservative sentimentality—“blacks have been wronged by the government via welfare and lowered expectations, but with enough flag pins, bibles, and Sowell books, this great people will stop killing us”—or far-right sentimentality—“whites and nigras is both bein’ used by the Jews! If we gits free o’ the kikes, we kin all prosper”—the sentimentality is always there.

At the heart of rightist race sentimentality is the avoidance of admitting an intractable problem: the inability of black America to rise from the mire (I’m not speaking individually, of course, as there’s no shortage of high-functioning blacks who rise just fine. I’m speaking collectively, the great mass of black unsalvageables). There’s not much political DNA separating race-sentimental rightists from the race-sentimental leftists who support Soros. “If we just stop imprisoning blacks who commit crimes, they’ll learn to like us and won’t be hostile anymore! It’s like earning the trust of a feral dog. Open palm, let him sniff you, show him you’re no threat.”

“Tucker Carlson’s taken a Neil Armstrong-size step off the sanity cliff in his pursuit of race sentimentality.”

Sound silly? Well, yeah, but is it any dumber than thinking that flag pins and Sowell books can tame ghetto curs? Race sentimentality is escapism, a dream that an intractable problem has an easy solution (or any solution).

Even literal David Duke—and in a world in which every rightist is at one time or another called a figurative David Duke, it’s important to remember that there exists a literal David Duke—is a race sentimentalist regarding blacks. A boy of the Old South, he envisions a day in which blacks and whites can both prosper—separately but equally—the Jew long exterminated.

Back in my youthful years, when I was in deep with very far-rightists, the one guy I refused to have any contact with was Michael Hoffman, the conspiracy wacko and Holocaust denier. Hoffman had cheered mass murderers James Huberty (who shot 21 Mexicans at a McDonald’s in 1984) and Patrick Purdy (the brave Aryan warrior who gunned down Asian schoolgirls playing jump rope in 1989) as “the best of the white race.” I rarely get offended, but Hoffman found a way. Yet even he—even this guy who celebrated Huberty’s sniper headshot to a Mexican baby—had race sentimentality toward blacks. In Hoffman’s 1988 book Candidate for the Order, the heroic white protagonist who goes on a Jew-killing rampage enlists the help of a proud black separatist. It’s like a buddy cop film, but…darker. Think Lethal Weapon but Murtaugh and Riggs shoot up a Jewish senior center.

And now Tucker Carlson’s taken a Neil Armstrong-size step off the sanity cliff in his pursuit of race sentimentality. Last week Tuck hosted as his “honored guest” Omali Yeshitela (real name Joseph Waller), the “chairman” of the African People’s Socialist Party, also known as the Uhuru cult. The Uhurus, based in St. Petersburg, Florida, but with “chapters” in St. Louis, Philly, and Oakland, believe in violent revolution against whites.

I’ve been covering Yeshitela since the early 2000s; allow me to share some of the wisdom of Tuck’s “honored guest.”

Yeshitela, via his newspaper The Burning Spear, has repeatedly told his followers to shoot at police helicopters and attack cops if they’re arresting a black person.

In order to stop the police from hurting members of the community, people threw rocks and bottles at police to cover people’s escape from the police attack. As the night went on AK-47 fire could be heard as shots were taken at the police helicopter. Other skirmishes with police were reported throughout the night. There is a long pattern and history of police murdering African people all across the U.S. There is not a recent pattern however, of a righteously militant response to such murders—except in St. Petersburg, Florida, the headquarters of the Uhuru Movement and the growing resistance to U.S. imperialism and colonialism within U.S. borders.

In every instance of police murder since the 1996 killing of 18-year-old TyRon Lewis, the justice that the African community has been denied in the courts, has been fought for in the streets. During the rebellions of 1996, which spanned two months, everyday African youth, who were called the “ghostfaces” because they covered their faces with t-shirts and bandannas, shot down a helicopter, burned police substations, media vehicles and anything that represented white power. The masses of people also opened fire on a battle group of 300 police. The ferocity of the community’s organized and calculated strikes against U.S. police troops represents the cutting edge of resistance to a dying but not yet dead North American system of imperialism and colonialism. (The Burning Spear, June 2005)

Yeshitela published an entire book about why white genocide in South Africa is necessary. Regarding “Uncle Tom” blacks who argue against murdering white children, Yeshitela wrote:

Anybody who’s running around saying, “Oh, please stop killing each other” is a problem. Anybody on the side of the oppressor must die! Must die! Must die! (The Struggle in South Africa Is for Black Power)

Regarding a local pastor’s charge that Yeshitela was inciting violence in the community, including straight-out advocating the murder of cops:

We’ve heard these charges coming from Murphy’s church and other negroes that the Uhurus are trying to incite something. They say that after they killed someone in our community, we put out these flyers in an attempt to incite something. They’re right. They’re right because the people need to be incited and excited about murder in our community. People need to be. So we say they will pay a price, and we want you excited by this. We want you incited to do something about this. (The Burning Spear, June 2005)

In March 2009 Lovelle Mixon brutally murdered four Oakland police officers. Yeshitela praised “brother Lovelle” and taunted the victims’ families by publishing a poem that mocked the slain officers.

African people in Oakland have a right to struggle against this government-imposed terror. This is exactly what our brother Lovelle Mixon did. Even if Mixon was not political, he took a righteous stand of resistance to police terror in a community—see: colony—controlled by the police—see: occupying army. Mixon was of the community, and should be remembered.

‘Velle’s name will ring in the street: A legend.
‘Velle Mixon, y’all listen, this is bigger than fiction;
‘Velle went out in a blaze of glory. He said he ain’t going back, Brrrrrat! Brrrrrrat!”
One pig, two pig, laying on the ground;
three pigs, four pigs, I bet they know now.
He knocked them down in an orderly fashion;
so now they hate the Mixons in an orderly passion.
(The Burning Spear, March 2010)

Regarding mass murderer Omar Thornton, a black “disgruntled employee” who gunned down eight coworkers in Manchester, Connecticut, on Aug. 3, 2010, because “they wuz racists,” Yeshitela cheered the killer and blamed the white victims:

In the end, Brother Omar took his own life, they say. And, if this is the case, he was not to give the Colonial police or the Colonialist court the opportunity to legally murder him by bullet or death chamber. The idea that he could have escaped was apparently not included in his justice seeking plans, although it should have been. According to reports, Brother Omar called his mother after shooting his predetermined antagonists, telling her, “I shot the racists that were bothering me.”

According to the white ruling class media outlet, Associated Press of August 5, which appeared in the Houston Chronicle, “Friends and Family of those who died said they couldn’t imagine their loved ones doing what Thornton said, and the company and union said Thornton never reported any harassment.” Well, as someone from Alcoholics Anonymous would say to an alcoholic who refuse to believe they have an addiction: you are in denial. By the same token, there are very few colonials who admit they are anti-black racist.

They both reap material rewards; the alcoholic more whiskey, wine, and beer. And the colonial, more vacations, more cars, and more luxury homes, and the convenience of not going to prison, no matter what crimes they commit. They have the luxury of not being shot down in the streets and in their homes by the different U.S. police agencies.



(Mark Essex was a black mass murderer who went on a killing spree targeting whites in New Orleans in 1972.)

Yeshitela calls white people “parasitism on the body of humanity” (The Burning Spear, September 1991). Asians are also not spared his wrath; he’s defended the ransacking and burning of Korean-owned stores as “rightful rebellion”:

In Philadelphia every major neighborhood shopping area is controlled by parasitic merchants, mostly Koreans…. Korean merchants and the sell-out Latino store owners who greedily suck the resources from the community daily were the rightful targets of the rebellion. (The Burning Spear, July 1991)

So why the alliance with Tucker? Well, first of all, the Uhuru cult manifesto is the mirror image of the MAGA manifesto.

We don’t believe that we can win our freedom by voting. We are going to have to fight our way out of here. (The Burning Spear, July 2006)

That’s the January 6 creed. Here we see the brotherhood of macho-bullshit losers who can’t win elections because they alienate voters with their reality-detached rhetoric.

Yeshitela hates Israel, denies the Holocaust, and believes in an overarching conspiracy of “deep staters” keeping the black man down. He and Tuck were destined to become buds. Indeed, this is not the first time the right’s flirted with a Yeshitela alliance. In 2010, Yeshitela came as close as you can to publicly calling for the assassination of a president. At a D.C. rally, he said of Obama:

He’s a murdering tyrant. Even if you’re not strong enough to stop him, you have to call him a dirty so-and-so, and you have to say it so that people can hear you, so that when the people get ready to move, you’ve already told them it’s alright to move. That’s why we’re out here now. The fuse is the most powerful part of a stick of dynamite. Well, we are the fuse, right here. We are the fuse, and we are on fire! We are on fire! You have to make the hard choices. You have to take people where they didn’t even know they were supposed to go, and you have to have the GUTS to tell them that Barack Hussein Obama is the ENEMY. If you don’t say that, people might be confused. They might think you like him. And if they like you, they won’t want to do anything to him, because they think that you like him. So you have to say, “you have our permission…to do what has to be done.” Okay, I don’t wanna talk about this too much because I’ll go to jail.

And immediately the mouthbreathers at Breitbart were like, “Hooray! A black leader we can champion.” And I had to explain to those toddlers that (a) killing presidents is bad even if you don’t like ’em, and (b) Yeshitela also wants to kill whites and cops, so maybe don’t encourage these beasts.

Breitbart actually backed off. In them days, folks listened to ol’ Dave.

So back to Tuck and his Yeshitela lovefest. On his Twitter show, Tuck claimed that the Uhurus were the “one political group in the United States” willing to “speak the truth” about Russia and Ukraine. And therefore, the deep state raided the Uhuru compound, to stop them from “spreading truth.”

In fact, a grand jury indicted the Uhuru cultists for conspiring with a foreign power. Is the case sound? I’ve no idea; it’ll play out and we’ll see. But the charge isn’t “speaking the truth.” The charge is that three Russian foreign agents, Aleksandr Ionov, Aleksey Sukhodolov, and Yegor Popov, enlisted the Uhurus for domestic political mischief in the black community on behalf of Russian intelligence. And, as someone who’s been covering these nuts for almost twenty years, I can tell you that this is right up the Uhuru alley. In 2010 the Uhurus partnered with expelled Venezuelan government operative Marcos Garcia to serve as a mouthpiece for Hugo Chavez. You do that shit long enough—allying with foreign agents—eventually the government might take notice.

But again, the current indictment will play out as it will. My interest is Tucker’s fawning interview with cop-killing advocate Yeshitela. Tuck called him “wise,” even as Yeshitela boasted about bringing down a police helicopter with ground fire. He repeatedly said “amen” as Yeshitela listed his grievances against whites. The two blood brothers talked about having dinner together, as Yeshitela declared the importance of liberating “occupied Palestine” “from the river to the sea.”

At one point in the interview, Tuck and Yeshitela yukked it up about how the phrase “black lives matter” is “a whine not a demand,” a “weak call to arms.”

You know what Yeshitela’s preferred phrase is? “Kill the police.” Not “defund the police,” but “kill the police.” He’s repeated it many times, in print.

Tuck forgot to tell you that.

At the end of the interview, Tuck said to Yeshitela, “I hope this is seen far and wide…I’m grateful. Godspeed, and thank you.”

“Godspeed and thank you” to the “kill the police” guy.

Keep in mind, the federal indictment against the Uhurus is a year old. It’s from April 2023, but Tuck’s only talking about it now.


Because MAGA is at peak horseshoe theory. All that matters is to champion any enemies of the “deep state,” the vile octopus that so torments god-king Trump.

Any enemies, “enemies” being defined as anyone prosecuted anywhere for anything. That’s why Kevin Spacey is Tuck’s new buddy, and why a black nationalist cult that wants to kill cops is Tuck’s new cause célèbre.

Tuck’s a “prison abolitionist” just as Yeshitela is, he simply presents it differently. The Yeshitela (and Soros) position is that anyone put on trial or sent to prison by “the man” must be released because the very foundation of “the man’s” justice system is so irredeemably biased, if “the man” comes after you, you’re a de facto victim of persecution. Now take that preceding sentence and replace “the man” with “the deep state” and that’s Tuck’s position.

MAGA rightists will sink the crime issue, because they’re so easily manipulable, they can champion a guy who chants “kill the police” because that guy is an enemy of the “deep state” and it matters not how many of your moms or daughters are killed by street thugs; once we’ve caught and defeated Baron Rothschild XVIII, peace will come to the land.

Ironically, after the 2020 election Tucker approvingly shared a column of mine in which I counseled rightists to stick to meat-and-potatoes issues like crime (issues that are visible to voters) and not abandon them for “sleuthing” invisible foes that voters can’t see.

And now, almost four years later, Tuck’s teaming up with a “kill the police” black extremist to fight the malevolent force only they can see.

Shows you how effective my words are.

The most telling part of the Tuck/Yeshitela interview was when the latter condemned Biden for his tough-on-crime positions in the 1990s and the former nodded like a retarded drinky bird.

Yep, the thing that worked, the 1990s tough-on-crime policies that saved L.A., are to be mocked, because we have Rothschilds to hunt and cop killers to collaborate with.

I hate cribbing my sign-offs from previous columns, but what choice do I have? This is the sign-off that defines the moment.

What a mess…what a fucking mess.

What even is “mental health” these days? Apparently, it is now best defined as a teenage child turning up to school dressed as a giraffe.

You may be aware of the lamentable phenomenon of “furries,” those clearly disturbed individuals who self-identify as animals. A typical example would be this absurd and pathetic young Norwegian girl named Nano who thinks that, due to “a genetic defect,” she is a cat born in a human body, and so crawls around on all fours, communicates via purring, sleeps in a sink, dresses in fuzzy ears and paws, and claims to possess both super-hearing and the supposed ability to see in the dark. Tellingly, she has proved thus far unable to catch any mice, though, these rodents being much too fast for her actually 100 percent human senses.

You would think that, as possessing “good mental health” is one of the chief mantras of the Oprah Winfrey Health Dictatorship that now rules over us, today’s governing class would be eager to disabuse misguided little girls like Nano of their delusions—yet in our Human Zoo era of transsexual self-ID, why not have trans-species self-ID too? Online furry advocacy groups, like, today give the genuine “mental health advice” to concerned schoolchildren that, if they are being bullied at school for being excessively tall, they might like to begin to self-ID as giraffes, thereby to take ownership of the whole situation and restore their state of innate psychological well-being.

Normal, non-mad individuals may easily perceive that telling a bullied beanpole to start turning up to school dressed as Geoffrey the Giraffe from the old Toys “R” Us adverts is more likely to cause further bullying than to end it—but no matter. These days, being psychologically normal is increasingly being redefined by identity-politics freaks as a sign of outright social insanity.

“Possessing a debilitating disorder has now been redefined as an essential identitarian fashion accessory.”

Asylum Seekers
Possessing a debilitating disorder has now been redefined as an essential identitarian fashion accessory. Which mental aberration is “in” this year? OCD? Tourette’s? Compulsive coprophagy?

Apparently, the current psychological condition du jour is autism, according to a new report from a pair of London clinicians, Anthony David, of University College, and Quinton Deeley, of King’s College, which warns that, since 1998, there has been a ninefold increase in autism diagnoses across the U.K.

Do many such new patients genuinely have autism, however, or have they just been groomed to think they have, thereby stealing away scarce medical resources from those genuine sufferers who actually need it? In recent years, just like gender, autism has been over-generously redefined not as a discrete psychological state, but as something that exists “on a spectrum”…you know, just like gender suddenly does in the eyes of leftist queer ideologues.

David and Deeley note that having a condition like autism or Asperger’s (the mild form of the ailment), or even being outright mentally ill or cognitively impaired, has been arbitrarily rebranded under the positive term “neurodiversity”—so, for example, a child who turns up to school dressed as a giraffe is just an excellent example of furry neurodiversity in action, rather than a complete nutcase who needs his or her neck snapping immediately for the good of wider normative society.

Forget “neurodiversity,” the authors suggest this trend should perhaps in fact be rechristened “neurophilia.”

Analyze This
There are plenty of apps out there nowadays that allow people to (mis)diagnose themselves with autism very easily, the doctors observe, the condition being defined loosely anew as a mere constellation of common generic behavioral traits—not enjoying social situations, for instance, finding small talk difficult, or enjoying regular, clockwork routines. In the past, such qualities would merely have been termed “being a bit awkward,” but no longer.

Now all kinds of celebrities have self-diagnosed themselves as autistic via an app store, and millions of proles are minded, lemming-like, to follow suit: It is estimated 700,000 adults in the U.K., and 5.4 million in the U.S., now enjoy an autism diagnosis, official or otherwise. Online “autism influencers” make money proudly broadcasting intimate awkward details of their lives to millions of strangers, coaching them that they too can have something very, very wrong with them—if only they have the courage to stand up and self-diagnose themselves so!

As with the current queer campaign to rewrite history by saying people like Churchill and Nelson were secretly gay or trans, various luminaries of the past, real and fictional, are also now being retrospectively “outed” as old-time “Auties,” too: Newton, Darwin, Mozart, Einstein, Jefferson, Tesla, Sherlock Holmes and, perhaps most notable of all, Dan Aykroyd from Ghostbusters.

Even Hitler was autistic now too, his own personal obsessive interest presumably being the limitless perfidy of the Jews. If no less an all-time high achiever than Der Führer is now revealed as having been a high-functioning autistic, then autism today must enjoy a new status of profound social cachet, not social stigma, as in primitive, prejudiced days of old. Being neurodiverse can now help you conquer all of Western Europe, after all.

Therefore, doctors are increasingly being besieged by people desperate to have their own individual personality flaws and failings—being emotionally cold and distant, say, having an abrupt and rude manner with others, or developing a disturbingly detailed aspiration to commit genocide against all known inferior races—revalidated as enjoying some sort of pseudo-clinical basis. Then, they can be automatically absolved of their sins by the new white-coat-clad priests of Oprah’s Church of Wellness™.

According to David and Deeley, patients are yelling at their doctors, “But it’s my lived experience!” putting the quacks under irresistible social pressure to conform to their own fake self-diagnoses. Thus, what we are now seeing is actually a fashionably driven boom merely in diagnoses of autism, rather than a genuine increase in the underlying genuine condition per se—an ideologically fueled social contagion, precisely like transgenderism. If autism really is now a “spectrum,” then where’s the cut-off point? Conceivably, everyone could be on it, could they not?

Head toward the comically self-validating website, and learn that “there’s no right or wrong way to come to the conclusion that you’re autistic.” What, not even just flipping a coin, consulting the I Ching, haruspicating entrails, or asking a Ouija board? No, because “Any route to your self-discovery is completely valid…. However you arrive at the conclusion, you are valid, and you get to identify however you choose.” That’s the precise kind of defective logic, taken to its extreme, that sees tall kids being groomed to become giraffes.

Positively Retarded
A fascinating 2023 study of an unnamed U.K. Sixth Form college whose staff and management enjoyed a distinctly left-liberal, diversity-worshipping outlook on life demonstrates perfectly how this kind of scam works. No long-necked teens turned up there dressed as Geoffrey, but, indoctrinated day in, day out in emetic mental well-being nonsense, an exceedingly disproportionate number of students began to self-ID as being “neurodiverse”—over a quarter of adolescents on the school’s books, more than double the national average. No wonder, when the coddled kids were given immediate access to a sacred safe-space-room-cum-padded-cell named “The Sanctuary,” filled with specialist staff members “dedicated to peace” whenever they felt the need to run out of lessons if distressed by hard sums or long words in books.

Predictably, the (mental) institution in question held regular whole-school cult-indoctrination assemblies devoted to focusing upon “mental hygiene.” When I was a Sixth Former, we just used to have whole-school assemblies devoted to the Good Word of Our Lord Jesus. Jesus was better.

According to the study’s authors, the children “having” [sic] self-diagnosed conditions like autism lent them automatic social cachet as walking embodiments of “Social Justice” [also sic] in action. Therefore, “Many of the students expressed a strong desire to seek out an official label for the disability they felt they might have, which had either been self-identified through looking on the Internet…or had been ‘picked up’ by teaching staff.” They furthermore sought out ostentatiously visible neurodiverse fashion accessories like earplugs to block out allegedly distressing noise from their oh-so-oversensitive pseudo-autistic earholes—which could actually have been genuinely beneficial to their mental well-being, because then they wouldn’t have been able to hear their ridiculous teachers grooming them into a state of fake public spasticity.

When I was a schoolboy, the only time I can recall anyone wanted to pretend to be disabled was when one perfectly healthy classmate boasted of planning to “borrow” a disabled relative’s wheelchair and then use it to jump the queue for rides next time he visited Alton Towers theme park whilst sitting in it, limp-wristed and drooling. If he was lucky, he said, he might even “get a sympathy wank” from one of the more bleeding-heart park attendants in their little hut afterward. When the rest of us expressed our profound disgust at this sicko scheme, he quickly dropped it. For today’s woke-washed youth, however, pretending to be mentally and physically handicapped is now a very public expression of their purported existence upon a far higher plane of left-wing morality.

Spastic Fantastic
Revealingly, students in the college—which was rather selective in its upper-middle-class intake—also chose to self-ID not simply as Auties, but as being abnormally “clever,” at least compared to the defective untermenschen proles who attended most normal local schools. Being of such superior intellect, these child geniuses consequently also felt they “were more likely to be enlightened and tolerant of difference than other young people,” like junior NYT readers, to the extent they actually sought to be “different” (re: psychologically unwell) themselves.

The whole autism epidemic in the place sounded more like one grand, gigantic opportunity to virtue-signal more than anything else. Here is the testimony of one cretinously woke student:

“I am chairing the prom committee at the moment…and we are going to do it as a silent disco because we’re very much aware that we’ve got a high percentage of people with autism or ADHD or people who…like myself, have some sort of sensory overload, just some anxiety from too much going on.”

I didn’t like discos as a teenager either. I didn’t begin spuriously self-identifying as autistic, though, and then turning up at them anyway before self-righteously demanding everyone turn the music off, or I’d publicly shit myself in the middle of the dance floor. Perhaps there is something profoundly wrong with kids like these today, after all—the Maoist, #BeKind society around them has deliberately programmed them all to be so.

As the report’s authors put it, the college’s students “appeared able to re-make disability as a liberal intellectual identity-marker and use it as a form of [social] capital” by choosing “to position themselves in empowering ways in relation to divergence from health ‘norms.’” Do note those inverted commas there.

The skeptical parents of one self-ID-ing girl put the real truth of the matter more bluntly: “They just think it’s trendy to have a disability or be mentally ill.” At last—a voice of sanity! Those parents want to be careful. With attitudes like that, they’ll soon end up locked away in a straitjacket.

The Week’s Clingiest, Stringiest, and Springiest Headlines

The South by Southwest (SXSW) film and music festival in Austin is no stranger to disruption. In 2014, a man named Rashad Charjuan Owens plowed through the crowd in his SUV, killing four. Why’d he do it? It was springtime; there were no Christmas parades.

The motive? Considering that he’s a black man with “char” in his name, it certainly had something to do with cold food.

This year, the SXSW controversy involves Jews. One of the festival’s sponsors is the U.S. Army, and over a hundred bands have pulled out to protest Israel’s Gaza war, the argument being that the Army’s too chummy with the IDF. Funny enough, not a single band ever canceled back when Obama was drone-bombing thousands of “brown people.” Indeed, it was standing-room-only when Obama premiered his award-winning film, Drone of Interest.

The U.S. Army bombs thousands of browns? “Where’s the stage, dude, I gotta do sound-check.”

Israel’s in a war? “Boycott the U.S. Army, man. Teach them Jews a lesson.”

Remember, most musicians are morons, and even the ones who weren’t born that way fried their brains on drugs in their teens.

According to The Hill, the bands that canceled include “Squirrel Flower, Mamalarky, and Kneecap,” which sounds like Joe Biden when he gets away from the Secret Service and goes wandering on the White House lawn.

Squirrel! Flower!

“Mr. President, please come back inside; you might hurt yourself.”


(Biden trips and falls to the ground.)


Sadly, the best anti-Israel concert has already come and gone. Very Burning Man, organized by Aaron Bushnell.

It’s the annual springtime thaw in Chicago. That’s when the ice melts and residents see the corpses of the murder victims that’ve been buried under snow the past four months.

“American history’s been harsh for girls who want to simultaneously wink, stick out their tongue, and give the middle finger while lip-synching to music.”

This year, though, something’s in the air, and it ain’t just the odor of DaShawn’s thawed corpse.

The day before the primary for Cook County State’s Attorney (DA) was probably the wrong day for an Illinois District Judge to rule that illegal immigrants have a right to own firearms. Obama appointee Sharon Coleman declared that illegal bean Heriberto Carbajal-Flores should be allowed to own guns restriction-free, after the “newcomer” wowed her with the argument that he only had the guns to “shoot theee leaves” because leaf blowers cause climate change.

However, last Tuesday was the primary election to replace outgoing DA Kim Foxx, the frog-mouthed Soros-backed ghetto girl who declined to run for another term because “if I don’t open dat weave shop now, I ain’t never gon’ do it.”

Running to replace Foxx: a somewhat tough-on-crime white female judge, and a “free every inmate of color” extremist black guy with the Dem Party endorsement. And thanks to Coleman’s ruling, Chicago’s blacks—the city’s most formidable bloc—have visions of armed illegal Venezuelans and Hondurans rampaging through their neighborhoods and robbing the goooood stores before the blacks get the chance.

Black Americans don’t fear much, but they fear armed beans, the only demographic that doesn’t fear them.

So, as of this moment, the “somewhat tough-on-crime” white woman is leading the “give all murderers a hug and a gift basket” black guy. The DA’s race got so hot following Coleman’s ruling, more Chicagoans voted in the DA primary than the presidential one.

The race has yet to be decided because the Democrats are busy collecting votes from the thawed corpses.

Sticking with Chicago, a city so enriched by diversity foreign and domestic that the locals are practically dying of happiness (correction: That’s literally dying of nappiness), more enrichment took place last week at a popular Little Village gay nightclub (ironically, the same neighborhood where the gun-toting bean from the previous story lives).

A proud Venezuelan tranny emerged from the club, looking forward to spending the rest of the night patronizing businesses and yelling at the clerks “¡llámame señora!”

However, “her” plans were ruined when a car pulled up and a Hispanic man shouted “bad gay” and shot the tranny in the groin, blowing “her” penis to kingdom cum.

Free sex changes! Is there nothing illegals can’t do?

Turns out the shooter’s a 29-year-old cartel-linked Venezuelan. And Kim Foxx refused to prosecute.

It’s a good thing she’s not running again, because she’d have trannies and Jews against her, the latter because that Venezuelan did with one cheap bullet what Doctors Sheinbloom and Lipzenschitz at Northwestern Memorial charge $100,000 to do.

Oddly, Governor DeSantis doesn’t want any of this enrichment in Florida. DeSantis “is deploying 250 law enforcement officers and an air-and-sea fleet to curb a potential wave of Haitian immigrants.”

Last week in Florida’s primary the GOP flipped a bunch of seats.

Wonder if there’s any connection?

To be fair to Haitians, when they shoot the penises off trannies, they don’t leave ’em littering the sidewalk like that thoughtless Venezuelan. They eat ’em.

As DeSantis patrolled the sea to block Haitians, the Dominican Republic constructed a 100-mile border wall, literally overnight (because Steve Bannon wasn’t there to steal the pesos), to keep Haitians out.

Poor Haitians…they must feel so unwanted. Unwanted by their fellow man, and—with thousands of them dying each month via cyclones, hurricanes, floods, famine, disease, and earthquakes—apparently unwanted by the earth itself.

A Jewish man, fed up with his frigid female co-religionists, decides to frequent a black bar, as he’d heard that black women are wild in bed. He meets a lady, and after a few drinks they get a room, where the man has the greatest sex of his life.

The next day he notices that his “member” looks browner. By day 2 it’s brown as a football. By day 3, black as a bowling ball. After a battery of tests, his doctor tells him that amputation is the only solution. Unwilling to face that possibility, the man visits a black doctor for a second opinion.

The black doctor immediately says to the man, “Lemme guess—you had sex with a black girl, and now your penis is black.”

“Yes,” the man answers.

“And the white doctors wanna cut it off.”

“Yes,” he says mournfully.

“Listen,” the doc reassuringly states, “I’ve seen this before. No need to amputate. No need at all.”

“Oh thank God,” the man cries.

“Yeah,” says the doctor, “one or two more days it’ll fall off on its own.”

Sometimes the coupling of a Jewish man and a black woman produces a risqué joke. Sometimes it produces Adam Serwer, a human joke and the craziest muthafinkel on the left. Last week, Mr. “Glatt Meets Gat” claimed in The Atlantic that the three liberal SCOTUS justices only sided with the majority in restoring Trump to the Colorado ballot because they felt threatened by “violent backlash from Trump supporters.”

And this is why Americans hate the media. The Atlantic editors know that isn’t true. If they genuinely believed that three female SCOTUS justices were being threatened by MAGAs, it’d be a page-one news story, not an op-ed. It’s the dishonesty that turns people off, misinformation by editors who know better.

Not that SCOTUS justices don’t harbor legitimate fears. Sotomayor is scared of global warming, because a world in which dying trees produce no leaves would render 90 percent of her family unemployed. And Jackson? Three feet of water. She’s the only justice on the bench who could be kept from court by a kiddie pool.

American history’s been harsh for girls who want to simultaneously wink, stick out their tongue, and give the middle finger while lip-synching to music. In Puritan times, such women were burned as witches. During the Revolutionary War, they were shunned by Ben Franklin as the only type of skank he wouldn’t date (and he’d been known to screw lifeforms that had yet to be identified by science).

During Prohibition, a generation of young men sobered up and discovered that “this crap isn’t attractive at all.” And during the Red Scare, uglyface/finger/synching was seen as communist subversion.

Joe McCarthy: “I put it to the witness that she’s a tool of the Politburo.”

Brittany: “ERR-MAH-GERD, have you no DERCENCY?”

McCarthy: “No what?”


McCarthy: “I don’t understand you!”

Roy Cohn (shaking his head): “And they wonder why I never got married.”

McCarthy: “No they don’t.”

And then TikTok arrived, and uglyface/finger/synch girls became superstars. See, that’s how TikTok established dominance. As Facebook and Twitter were stifling growth with shadowbans, to the extent that users would be grateful for just one new follower, TikTok was like, “Do bimbo uglyface and you’ll get 100,000 followers immediately!”

It was a good business model; too bad it was employed by the Chinese for espionage.

And now Congress wants to take it all away. And that doesn’t sit well with Rand Paul, a huge fan of uglyface (as are all Ayn Rand acolytes). Also, Paul happens to be the recipient of big money from Jeff Yass, a mogul who could lose up to $30 bil if TikTok is banned. Another Yass teat-suckler is Trump, who suddenly decided last week, “For some reason I don’t wanna ban TikTok after all!”

When called out on Yass’ influence, Trump “truthed” that it has nothing to do with money. TikTok’s demise would give Mark Zuckerberg new users, and Trump hates Zuckerberg.

And behold the lowered expectations of today’s political reality: Trump’s accused of flipping because of influence peddling, and when he replies, “No, I did it because of a petty personal grudge,” everyone’s like “Oh, well that’s better.”