We are finally reaching the fag end of annual Pride Month this June—but don’t worry, despite its name, it’ll still continue limping on throughout the next two remaining months of summer, too. And then the following four months of the year in addition. And then starting anew all over again in early January.
Yet it often seems as if the Sacred Month is misnamed not only because it lasts for somewhat longer than a mere four calendar weeks; rather than being simply proud, many of its most eager participants nowadays seem more as if they were wholly shameless instead. There is a difference.
Piddling Pool
At last year’s San Francisco Pride march, which was billed as being “family-friendly”—for the families of Caligula, Elagabalus, and Nero, maybe—grown men were filmed wandering around naked, while exhibitionists openly urinated on one another in paddling pools in front of children who had been dragged along to watch, thereby to teach them the virtues of “tolerance.” Also proudly participating in the Pride Parade that year were the FBI, although sadly not in the capacity of arresting and then shooting everyone involved. The Boy Scouts of America were in attendance too, thereby hoping to disprove the bigoted old stereotype about scoutmasters all being obvious pedophiles.
Of course, SF Pride does still have some standards: In 2022, it briefly banned participants from marching in police uniforms, due to the pigs’ long and ignoble alleged record of “oppressing” queers by, for example, locking them up behind bars whenever they had previously attempted to piss on one another for sexual pleasure in front of other people’s toddlers.
Last year, the FBI, perhaps worried about the potential fate of some of its own participating agents, warned that Islamist terror organizations like ISIS could well target Pride events all across the country. Regrettably, the FBI were wrong.
Interestingly, nudity is listed as being a specific crime in San Francisco, at least outside of one’s own private bathtub. The only way to get around this, for any public event, is to apply for a permit from city authorities—so, the city’s impeccably far-left mayor at the time, London Breed, and various of her underlings, must presumably have thought it was a legitimate moral cause to have kids exposed to live-action displays of human-toilet-play taking place in miniature rubber swimming pools.
Golden Showers on the Golden Gate Bridge: the new tourist slogan promise of the 100 percent shameless San Francisco of tomorrow.
Crash Course in Corruption
Contemporary politicians’ unquestioning mass support of even the worst excessive manifestations of Gay Pride should not really surprise us, as most of them seem to be thoroughly shameless these days too. Once upon a time, at least in the novels of Nathaniel Hawthorne, moral transgressors were made to stitch big red “A”s upon their clothes, for “Adultery.” Today, they would be more likely to wear their Scarlet Letter as a badge of Pride, “A” for “Anal.”
Last year on this site, I wrote about Jamie Wallis, an English MP arrested after abandoning his car at the scene of a crash, before fleeing unsteadily into the night dressed in high heels and a miniskirt. Once news of his conviction emerged, Wallis pleaded for sympathy and leniency by virtue of coming out as a trans-thing, before providing the public with explicit and unwanted details about how another man had recently bummed him sans condom, something that had somehow helped “cause” his illegal car-crash conduct. For doing so, he was applauded by his fellow MPs the next time he appeared in the House of Commons, instead of being hounded out with pitchforks and sharpened dildo-spears as a moral freak, like he should have been.
Wallis was back in court the other week, now posing under his new name of “Katie,” for harassing his ex-wife. A guilty plea was entered, but it doesn’t appear Jamie felt truly guilty at all, to judge by the fact his legal representatives pleaded that “the impact of her gender transition on her mental health” ought to be taken into account during sentencing. I agree. Hang him just for trying it on again.
No doubt Wallis would tearfully accuse this current article of “kink-shaming” him. But how can you kink-shame someone who appears to suffer no noticeable concept of shame at all?
Wake Up and Snort the Coffee
There have always been corrupt and morally flawed public officials, from time immemorial; but at least men like Pontius Pilate still once realized they had actual sins to wash their hands clean of. Today’s governing class think themselves an entirely different, superior species to the rest of us, with nothing ever to apologize for. In fact, it’s us who should really be apologizing to them, for simplemindedly and incorrectly thinking they might have anything worth apologizing for in the first place.
After a right-wing candidate, Karol Nawrocki, won the Polish presidential election in June, a leading liberal Polish movie director, Agnieszka Holland, expressed her immense dismay that “unaware, simple people with [only] primary education” had decided the contest for the whole nation, proposing everyone without a university degree should be henceforth stripped of the franchise. I wonder if Jamie Wallis might think likewise about the primitive ’tard voters of Great Britain.
The U.K.’s most recent General Election was in 2024, but Wallis decided not to re-stand for election then, citing the excuse the electoral boundaries of his old constituency had just changed. Really? Or might it instead have had something to do with the probability that, unlike their far higher educated “betters” in the House of Commons, Wallis’ local proletarian voters would have been ever so slightly less likely to have applauded him for his disturbed deviancies than to have booted him out as a lying, mentally ill pervert at the very first opportunity they received?
Thanks to the conduct of “women” like Wallis, Western voters will now believe almost anything at all bad of their politicians. During a recent diplomatic train trip to Ukraine, the leaders of France, Britain, and Germany were pictured hard at work on the train, surrounded by cups, spoons, paper napkins, and other common coffee-table paraphernalia. Spying an opportunity, Russian propagandists lied that the coffee paraphernalia was in fact drug paraphernalia, and that the leaders had been off their Heads of State throughout their whole trip. Their sugar was cocaine, their spoons were for dishing out lines of the stuff, and a crumpled tissue was “a bag of Blow.” The French State clarified this latter item was more truly a harmless white item “for blowing your nose,” but of course that could have been taken in two ways.
Several Western conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones of Infowars fame, fell for the scam, telling his millions of followers that “All three of the ‘leaders’ look completely cracked out.” Darren Linvill, an expert in Russian disinformation campaigns from a U.S. university, said of the Russkies that “Anything that makes the leaders of rival nations appear debauched and corrupt works to their advantage.” In that case, the Kremlin no longer needs to engage in any disinformation campaigns at all.
No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
The true problem with genuinely shameless politicians like our current mob is that, once their shortcomings and hypocrisies are exposed to the glare of public revelation, they just don’t appear to really care. Take Democratic senator Raphael Warnock, a black preacher who has consistently praised Marxism and the redistribution of wealth—especially toward himself. In 2021, Warnock became the first black senator in Georgia’s history, partly by virtue of accusing his Republican opponent of using her seat in the Senate to get rich. Guess what Warnock himself then did once he became a senator too.
Since being elected, Warnock has nearly tripled his average earnings from around $242,000 per year to an average of about $660,000 per year, boosting his total wealth from $1m to $2.2 million, according to the New York Post. But how? Senators receive a $174,000 salary, being allowed to earn an extra $32,000 from side jobs like Warnock’s pastorship, making a grand potential upper total of $206,000. So where did the other $454,000 come from?
A loophole says there is no explicit upper limit on senators’ earnings for book deals. Therefore, in order to spread his valuable political teachings to as wide an audience as possible, Warnock signed a multivolume deal with Penguin Books. And what kind of books did he then begin publishing? Books like a financially didactic children’s story called We’re in This Together: Leo’s Lunch Box, which may sound like an ode to cannibalism among Warnock’s own racial voter base, but which is actually a pseudo-religious parable about the need to share one’s wealth with others.
In the story, a poor little black boy named Leo is bullied for having the same cheap baloney sandwiches in his packed lunch box each and every day, this being all his poverty-stricken mother can afford. But one day, he gets a new magic lunch box, which multiplies all kinds of lovely foods like Jesus did when feeding the 5,000.
Rather than hoarding his newfound gastronomic wealth in revenge upon his former bullies, Leo instead redistributes it among them like a good little Communist, so illustrating Senator Warnock’s profound belief in “empathy, community, and caring for others.” A belief Warnock then chose to demonstrate by getting incredibly rich off the back of his own election, thanks to overblown, overpaid contracts for total non-books like Leo’s Lunch Box. A load of baloney indeed.
In Gino Veritas?
It’s not just the politicians who are thoroughly shameless now; it’s absolutely everyone in the realm of world affairs. The most ironically illustrative example of this phenomenon of late came with the firing of Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino, a behavioral scientist and expert in business ethics who had authored several acclaimed studies into the subject of dishonesty in public life. Her sackable sin was to have allegedly falsified the data such studies were based upon—that is to say, for committing acts of dishonesty in public life. Well, she did say she was an expert.
How low can public standards now fall? Considerably, to judge by how shameless certain popular entertainers—which, in our dumbed-down media age, many politicians like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are increasingly becoming—have lately proved themselves to be.
In shame societies like Japan or South Korea, boy-band or girl-band members can be expelled from the national stage forever simply for having a private boyfriend or girlfriend. In shameless societies like contemporary Weimar America, lunatic rapper Kanye West now openly boasts of having been secretly fellating his own cousin since the age of 6.
In his new song “Cousins,” Ye raps about how, when still a child, he had found his mother’s stash of gay porn magazines before acting out certain orally indecent acts he had seen depicted in them with his close male relative—before going on to explain how this DEFINITELY doesn’t mean that he’s gay. How little shame must a man have not only to admit to sucking his own cousin’s cock wholly unnecessarily on the public record, but to release an actual song glorifying the act?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the megalomaniacally minded Kanye has in the past expressed the ambition to stand for president. “My name is Ye and I sucked my cousin’s dick till I was 14,” Kanye has bragged in a tweet. The way things are going, come 2028 that could stand as an actual political campaign slogan. Even worse, it might well win.
The Week’s Most NATO-Free-Ride, Uranium-Tries-to-Hide, and Disney-Child-Bride Headlines
PAY-PER-SOLDIERS
As President Trump arm-twists NATO members into spending 5 percent of their GDP on annoying ayatollahs, Great Britain has a major problem in complying: It is broke. Penny-pinching U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has hit upon the desperate solution of arbitrarily reclassifying various forms of wholly unrelated government outlay, like telecoms and transport, as being supposedly “military” in their nature, on the spurious grounds that, at some hypothetical point in the future, a soldier, sailor, or airman might make some conceivable use of it.
So, for example, one day a tank may need to drive across a bridge. That now makes the bridge into military infrastructure. One day a soldier may need to make a phone call, send an email, or watch a short video of a cat. This makes the broadband network into military infrastructure. One day this very same soldier may even go so far as to desire to eat a potato. As Starmer’s new definition of “national security” also includes exceedingly generic things like “food prices,” ensuring it doesn’t cost the soldier more than £1.35 per family-size bag to do so now makes the potato into a form of military infrastructure too. Why not stick a fuse in one and call it a grenade?
The Royal Navy has just announced plans to purchase a brand-new weapons system, “Dragonfire,” designed to shoot down incoming enemy missiles, drones, shuttlecocks, and snowballs with intense, directed laser beams. Sounds impressive—until you consider the main reason the system has been procured is that, unlike expensive one-use defensive ballistic missiles, each round of Dragonfire laser repellant costs under £20, cheaper even than a box of fireworks.
Announcing the system’s invention in 2024, naval chiefs boasted it could accurately hit a £1 coin from a kilometer away. Announcing full procurement this summer, this boast had now been reduced down to hitting a 2 pence coin from a similar distance, a saving of some 98 pence per item of target-training material. That’s another half bag of spuds that can be stocked up on to throw at some frigates, then.
Fortunately, NATO’s chief likely future foe Russia is similarly ruble-strapped. Dire economic conditions are threatening the Kremlin’s war effort in Ukraine, with the price of staple foods, particularly potatoes, shooting through the roof by more than 50 percent since January: Should Vladimir Putin ever sink to Starmer’s level and try using those as makeshift explosives, the U.K. might actually be able to outspend him for once. Vegetable conflict with the Kremlin should still be approached by NATO with extreme caution, however. Never forget, Russia is the land of War and Peas.
THEATER OF WAR
Also suffering economic turmoil is Iran, a place now far less enriched than its own uranium. Fresh from being out-bombed by Tel Aviv and Washington, the Ayatollah’s Army responded in the only way it can presently afford: with an animated, LEGO-made propaganda video in which tiny yellow plastic versions of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu engage in a subterranean war conference with the Devil, before brave Islamic revolutionary forces fire missiles at cheap model Israeli F-35 jets and tower blocks.
If LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, LEGO now stands for Less Expensive Government Ordnance; plastic weapons for a part-plastic war. Following their nuclear sites being blasted, the Iranians vowed “revenge” by firing off a volley of missiles toward a U.S. base in Qatar—but only after politely informing the Americans and Qataris they were going to do so first, thus allowing them all to be immediately swatted down like gnats. Likewise, before bombing Fordow, Trump had provided the Persians more than enough forewarning to be able to load all their pre-enriched uranium onto trucks and spirit it away.
Some countries, like Iran, have weapons so expensive they can’t possibly use them, like the enriched uranium. Other countries, like America, have weapons like bunker busters so expensive they can’t possibly not use them, otherwise they will seem like a waste of money. So, one country obligingly moves its expensive weapon out of the way so that the other country can use its expensive weapon pretending to destroy the other expensive weapon. Then both sides go home happy and call it having had a war. Others, more in touch with their own childhood memories, may prefer to just call it a game of adult hide-and-seek.
“Israel is not going to attack Iran!” Trump later typed online, announcing a ceasefire. “All planes will turn around while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!”
Then Israel attacked Iran again.
TRASH TALK IS CHEAP
Outraged, Commander Trump developed a brand-new, zero-cost, single-use NATO superweapon all his own: the F-Bomb. Following Israel and Iran breaking their fake ceasefire, Trump publicly complained that “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard they don’t know what the fuck they are doing,” unlike him.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte immediately purred his approval, explaining how “Sometimes Daddy has to use strong words,” if not necessarily any polysyllabic ones.
The crude shock F-Bomb pronouncement of this latter-day Orange Metternich before the world’s watching media had the desired effect, both sides in the Middle East putting away their LEGO V-2 kits and resuming playing nicely with each other. The trouble is, just as with real nuclear weaponry, once the initial genie is out of the bottle, Insult Bombs have a tendency to proliferate and grow ever more destructive and indiscriminate in their nature.
Once upon a time, we had the purely tactical-use Israelite Z-Bomb (“Zounds! Thou hast better not destroy those Walls of Jericho, o ye accursed Gentiles!”) and the medium-yield French D-Bomb (“Now listen here, leave that Damn Maginot Line alone, Fritz!”), whose effectiveness as a means of sweary deterrent history teaches us proved only temporary. Eventually, the linguistic scientists of other nations will develop the technical means to tell Donald Trump to fuck off too, at which point America will have no choice but to develop a new, even more awesome weapon-of-last-resort: the C-Bomb. Should Trump get angry enough to call Putin or Xi one of those on live TV, World War III will follow right on cue after the next ad break.
In the meantime, if anyone out there ever manages to develop such a thing as a Truth-Bomb, Trump and Netanyahu really will be fucked.
KEEPING THE WOLF FROM THE DOOR
One world leader using current events in the Holy Land to justify genuinely increasing his military budget is Argentina’s Javier Milei. Milei is best known for taking a buzzing chain saw to government largesse, hence his admirable slogan “No hay plata!” (or “There is no money!”) when it comes to unnecessary fripperies like DEI schemes, international aid, or hospitals. There is enough money available, however, to increase spending on Argentina’s armed forces from 0.5 percent of GDP to 2 percent of GDP over the next decade.
Argentina doesn’t really have any natural enemies, though, leading Milei to eagerly exploit the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes to declare that, all of a sudden, “Iran is an enemy of Argentina,” and that, by blitzing its nuclear sites, Bibi and Don were “saving Western civilization.” But Iran is far away, and its missiles cannot reach Argentina’s soil. So how is it an enemy? Well, Milei thinks there is a prime potential Jewish target available to be aimed at by the Shia lunatics in Argentina today: himself.
Although not actually Jewish, Milei has repeatedly said he wishes he were Jewish, and has begun acting accordingly: hence his constant cry of “There is no money!” Javier the Jew’s main ducat-hoarding tactic for boosting defense cash is to slash the nation’s immense amounts of wasteful public spending—particularly its overgenerous, state-backed werewolf-prevention scheme.
In native folklore, it is said that any family’s seventh child will inevitably turn into a wolfman, or lobizón, during the full moon. To prevent this, beginning in 1974, a nationwide law was enacted, formally making the country’s president the godfather of any suspiciously hairy baby, handing them out a protective blessed solid-gold medal and an educational scholarship to get them through those difficult Teen Wolf years. Since the law’s passage, 12,000 children have been “saved” from werewolfery in this way. By trimming such fatuous fat, Milei thinks he can easily quadruple defense spending by 2035.
Over on Downing Street, the even more aspirantly Jewish-minded Sir Keir McDuck is watching closely. Under an equally outdated old law from the Boris Johnson era in 2021, every newborn infant in the Greater London area was made the godchild of the PM likewise and handed a large Treasury-funded Child Support Agency settlement, on the grounds there was at least a 50/50 chance Johnson was their actual father. By scrapping this outdated regulation, it is estimated Starmer could save the British State approximately £12 trillion per annum, immediately rendering it the biggest military spender in all of NATO. Just imagine how many potatoes, telephones, and bridges the British Army could buy for that!
TONE-DEAF IN VENICE
There is nowhere on the planet an infidel Westerner can go these days without potentially being atomized by a bearded millenarian nutcase with a big black rag wrapped around his skull. This is why a new survey shows Americans increasingly fear venturing abroad, leading reasons including bad experiences in the past (15 percent), not knowing much about their destination (27 percent), and being randomly bombed to shit by Trump, Netanyahu, or Ayatollah Khamenei (96.7 percent).
Even the billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ lavish and wasteful wedding to Lauren Sánchez in Venice this week had to have its venue switched at the last minute, away from a vulnerable city-center palazzo to a heavily fortified shipyard area, after it was feared Iran may try to attack the occasion on account of Trump’s daughter Ivanka being on the celebrity guest list. As others scheduled for attendance included Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Katy Perry, and the Kardashians, it could easily be argued Iran would have done infinitely more damage to America by not bombing and killing everyone present, leading to a last-minute change of plan by a man in Tehran.
This left angry anti-poverty and anti-waste protesters (“No hay plata!”) to take matters into their own hands to disrupt the nuptials instead, by threatening to fill Venice’s canals with giant inflatable crocodiles to prevent unwanted foreign guests from landing on Venetian shores in their hired gondolas. Over in London, PM Starmer looked on with interest at another potential cheapskate way for the Royal Navy to block the English Channel from being invaded by any further migrant boats in imitation.
But what precise kind of immigrants may Scrooge have had in mind to repel from Albion’s fair shores…?
MALE ORDERED BRIDE
Bezos’ wasn’t even the most tasteless European wedding this week. In Disneyland Paris, another man who would doubtless greatly enjoy being called “Daddy” by Mark Rutte was 39-year-old Jaksam Jhaj, an alleged “Englishman” arrested by French police for attempting to stage a public marriage to a 9-year-old white girl, paying out £111,000 to hire 100 fake guests to witness the atrocity. The event was staged at Euro Disney’s Sleeping Beauty Castle, temporarily renamed Rohypnol Castle for the day.
The girl’s Ukrainian mother was also arrested but protested she only wanted her daughter to “feel like a Disney Princess.” Which one? Princess Jasmine being abducted by Jafar? The last blonde white princess to go for a night out with a Muslim in Paris didn’t exactly walk away intact with a fairy-tale ending, did she?
Once apprehended, you’ll never guess what: It turned out Jaksam Jhaj was a known convicted pedophile! Helpfully aiming to confirm this fact, in 2020 he had even released a two-hour online movie, Dangerous Sexual Predator, in which he drove around topless in a 4×4 in the company of schoolgirls, acting like…well, like a dangerous sexual predator. Imprisoned in 2016 for sexually assaulting two 15-year-olds, in 2023 the inexplicably well-off Jhaj recruited a crowd of underage girls as young as 6 to dress in school uniforms and pretend to be his adoring, fainting fans at a filmed fake movie premiere in London’s West End; it is to be presumed the movie being shown was Lolita.
Screw nuclear missiles. If the Third World Muslim nations of the Earth like Iran really want to destroy the West, why don’t they just keep sending us all their people?
On his first day in office — of his second term, not his wasted first term — President Trump signed an executive order ending anchor babies, the practice of treating kids born to illegals on U.S. soil as full-fledged citizens. (Apparently, our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that poverty-stricken third-worlders who force their way into our country would never have to leave.)
Three federal district court judges promptly issued (you’ll never guess) nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s order. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on those injunctions any day now.
It may be that the anchor baby lunacy is, as the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Verbruggen says, “a nutty policy we’re probably stuck with.” The exclusionary rule was invented out of whole cloth, too, and it also did great damage to the country. But given a golden opportunity to overturn Miranda 25 years ago, the court passed. Longevity trumped reality.
That is clearly the assumption of smug liberals sneering that Trump’s executive order is “blatantly unconstitutional,” as one injunction-happy judge put it. Their sublime confidence in the permanence of a made-up constitutional right is awe-inspiring.
The way liberals (and Fox News) carry on about the sacred right of illegals to give birth to anchor babies, you’d think the Constitutional Convention consisted of little else than James Madison imploring his fellow delegates to ensure that Mexicans who sneak across the border and drop a baby would be able to start collecting welfare right away.
In fact, the whole “birthright citizenship” scam is based on a wildly expansive interpretation of post-Civil War amendments that were designed to help blacks and former slaves. Birthright citizenship, let alone the anchor baby con, has nothing to do with the original Constitution. And as Trump keeps saying, the post-Civil War amendments, such as the 14th, are all about slavery.
But liberals are masters of taking ideas from the fringes of academia and cementing them onto the Constitution. Crackpot “rights” no one had ever heard of before go from absurdity to inviolable in about five minutes, and suddenly, you’re a kook or a racist if you disagree.
Other rights on the Fringe-to-Constitution conveyor belt:
— The aforementioned Miranda right, requiring courts to throw out criminal confessions simply because the cop screwed up, was invented by Yale Kamisar in the early ’60s and adopted by the Supreme Court in 1966.
— “Disparate impact,” allowing test results alone to prove race discrimination, was invented by Robert Belton in the ’60s and adopted by the Supreme Court in 1971.
— “New Property,” treating welfare as “property,” deserving due process rights, was invented by Yale law professor Charles Reich in 1964 and adopted by the Supreme Court in 1970.
The genesis of anchor babies is even less weighty than these nouveau “rights.” Citing a 1912 book by the register of copyrights Clement L. Bouve, Justice William Brennan slipped the idea of anchor babies into footnote 10 in 1982, but it was never adopted by the court. Brennan’s footnote was mere dicta, i.e. an irrelevant aside, of no legal import.
It’s not as if no one had ever noticed the 14th Amendment until Justice Brennan came along. There’s more than a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence blathering about its meaning. Here’s an abbreviated summary:
— Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873 — i.e. five years after the Civil rights amendments were adopted, so the justices probably had some idea what they were talking about:
“[O]n the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
— Ex Parte Virginia, 1879 — six years after the amendments were adopted. Notice: nothing about Mexicans running across our border when they’re eight months pregnant:
“[The 13th and 14th amendments] were primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot. …
“[N]otwithstanding the amendment …, the freedmen were, by legislation in some of the Southern States, subjected to such burdensome disabilities in the acquisition and enjoyment of property, and the pursuit of happiness, as to render their freedom of little value. …
“It thus removed from discussion the question … whether descendants of persons brought to this country and sold as slaves were citizens, within the meaning of the Constitution.”
— Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880, or seven years after the civil rights amendments were added to our Constitution. Again, nothing about pregnant Mexicans or Chinese birth tourists:
“The Fourteenth Amendment … is one of a series of constitutional provisions having a common purpose — namely, securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that, through many generations, had been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy. The true spirit and meaning of the amendments … cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish.”
And that’s how it stood for more than a century until liberals latched onto Brennan’s non-binding footnote 10 and began browbeating the rest of us about anchor babies as if it were a fundamental principle in our founding document.
In fact, liberals’ reliance on Brennan’s footnote — it’s all they’ve got — proves that they are lying. If the natural, normal reading of the 14th Amendment is that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, then why did Brennan have to say it?
No justice ever felt the need to drop a footnote to clarify that soldiers can’t be quartered in private homes in peacetime without the owner’s consent. You know why? Because that’s actually in the Constitution. Manifestly, anchor babies were not part of the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment. These are the facts, no matter what the women on the Supreme Court have to say.
Both the system and the word “democracy” were invented by the Greeks, specifically the Athenians. “Demos” was the ancient word for “people,” hence the rule of the people is democracy. I’ve always preferred the selective kind, as practiced by the Brits until late in the 19th century—when one needed to own property before qualifying to vote—and the kind that made ancient Athens great, an obligatory education before being allowed to cast a ballot. That kept the demagogues in their place, because if you are correctly educated you can sniff out the fraud and duper from a mile away.
No longer. Fake news is now believed to be the truth, especially when spread by the media, experts at disinformation. Here are a few examples taken at random from the papers I have in front of me, one week before this article appears: A columnist for the Bagel Times seriously notes that Hitler in 1935 had not as yet enforced a police state in Germany but was just like Trump is today, nuanced but nevertheless bound to turn into a dictator. Now, the man writing this rubbish, Kristof, may scare some children and impress some old ladies, but anyone who knows the difference between Germany in 1935 and the USA in 2025 knows that this theory is not only childish, but written for idiotic children at that.
A further editorial in the paper of disinformation charges Trump with corruption and weakening American democracy by his self-dealing. No proof, just charges. In the meantime, democracy is being challenged as 10 to 12 million foreign nationals who walked into these United States during Biden’s time and joined the already 12 to 20 million illegal aliens residing here present a problem. While American citizens were required to present multiple forms in order to travel within the country, illegal entrants were flown across the nation often stealthily without any valid ID at all. If that’s democracy at work, I’m an overripe banana. In the City of Angels—ha ha—foreign flags come out while rioters against law and order burn the place down. Why? Because illegal aliens who have committed crimes are being arrested and deported. And the black female mayor of the city takes the side of the criminals, while the governor of California also plays it safe. In my not-so-humble opinion, something is very wrong here, and it’s democracy not working, nothing else.
Which brings me to the reasons why we need a bit of autocracy, and why we need it now. Egalitarianism seems to be the culprit of what ails these United States, the passions of the mob having taken over what once upon a time was known as civil disobedience. The passions of the mob saw an illegal migrant lighting up a sleeping American woman and watching her burn to death while he fanned the flames with his shirt. Nice. The burned woman was suffering from mental problems, but her immolation soon turned into just another statistic. Like the rape of a dead man in a New York subway by yet another illegal migrant, only arrested after the gruesome incident. Necrophilia lives among illegal aliens in New York City. So what is to be done? Easy. As previously stated above, we need some autocracy and we need it now.
The major threat to the West’s security today emanates from its own pusillanimity. Global elites and immigrants are stacked against good middle-class and working-class guys. The L.A. violence will keep expanding in the U.S. and in Europe, especially in France and the U.K. The latter will see whites in the minority in 25—yes, 25—years, and what comes next is anyone’s guess. Will sharia law prevail? It will probably be shoved up the Brit bum, and the latter will as usual say, “Thank you.”
The battle will have to be fought not only in the streets but also in the classroom. What sets fire in our streets is our complacency and the fifth column of the media. (The fifth column were the pro-German French working for appeasement back in 1939.) And then there’s the great replacement theory that argues that liberal elites are behind a conspiracy to replace white Europeans with migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rise of non-white immigration in Europe dwarfs any other potential dangers, yet no politicians except a few like Nigel Farage in Britain seem to bother with it.
The great German academic Hans Hoppe, an acquaintance of mine, argues that universal suffrage has supplanted rule by the natural elite. In other words, the foreign criminal has as many or more rights than the law-abiding citizen. A benevolent strongman is needed, according to Hoppe—and Taki—someone who would rule efficiently and prioritize the well-being of his subjects. If I had my way, journalists would have to report the truth, not their truth, and would be prevented by the state when acting like East German Stasi, informing on citizens who didn’t agree with them. I would also abolish Pride Month, because, as Norman Mailer put it so well, “Just because you take it up the bum doesn’t mean we have to watch parades for a month that celebrate it.”
Let’s face it. Liberalism has trampled traditional values underfoot, and many of us are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. (Sorry, Howard Beale.) American emphasis on individual freedom has come at the expense of families and communities and has turned us into non-related selves—afraid, alone, marionettes controlled by left-wing puppeteers. Egalitarianism is the bad guy wearing a black hat; an autocratic strongman is the good one, and he wears a white one.
At the birth of the internet age in the early 1990s, the U.S. and Europe took opposite approaches to advancing this new economy-changing technology.
Europe tried the approach of industrial policy: They allowed government to regulate, subsidize and then tax the swarm of new tech companies that emerged.
Here in the U.S., Congress and the Clinton administration made a wiser choice. We passed laws that kept internet startups regulation-, tax- and lawsuit-free. It was the Wild West of startup technology companies. A Darwinian race to excellence and survival. Some of the big initial companies like AOL, Netscape and MySpace gave way to superior competitors like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook.
We all know the end of this story. For three decades America and Silicon Valley came to entirely dominate these earliest innings of the digital age. Today we have our Magnificent Seven tech companies — many with a market cap above $1 trillion — that are, combined, worth more than every company in Europe combined.
Tech companies today comprise nearly 40% of the S&P 500 market cap.
Now we are at the dawn of stage 2.0 of the digital age, with computers armed with artificial intelligence software having a capacity to learn, remember and compute orders of magnitude faster than past machines. The power and capability are magnificent, awe-inspiring and frightening all at once.
Robots and AI have the capacity to give sight to the blind, eliminate all grunt work and manual labor, and send rockets all over the galaxy, with flying cars potentially being the next big thing. I am on the board of a company, Lightspeed, that builds houses with robots. We don’t want or need government subsidy or interference.
Just in the next decade, Goldman Sachs estimates more than $7 trillion of added wealth globally from AI. That adds up to a lot more than a chicken in every pot.
This transformative technology must be led by America. This time around, China is our rival that has designs on supplanting America as the superpower. That outcome would be bad for all of humanity, as the leaders in Beijing are dangerous authoritarians that could use these advances for evil, not good.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation points out that China is “advancing rapidly in AI research and application, challenging the United States’ dominance in this critical field.”
We have a natural advantage over China despite their four-times-higher population because their model of central control is far inferior to ours, which is propelled forward through private for-profit enterprise.
But this advantage could be nullified if policymakers in Washington and state capitals meddle and interfere. More than 1,000 pieces of AI-related legislation have been introduced in the states just this year.
So far the Trump administration has wisely taken a light-touch approach to regulation. In one of his first acts this year, President Donald Trump repealed an intrusive Biden executive order on AI issued in 2023.
At a Senate committee hearing in May, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, was asked about the impact of “a patchwork regulatory framework and how that could impact” U.S. competitiveness on AI. “I think it would be quite bad,” he said. “I think it is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulation … that will slow us down at a time where I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest for us to slow down.”
But the Left is increasingly spreading fear of Dr. Evil doomsday scenarios to press the case for government intervention. This will delay the multitude of spectacular benefits to even the poorest among us. Technology is a natural equalizer, not a thief.
All that can hold back another era of American tech dominance is when government tries to step in and help — or hinder.
Is your home your castle?
Not when eminent domain law lets politicians confiscate your property if they claim it’s for “public use.”
Politicians say they need the power to take property to build public projects like roads and railroad tracks.
OK. Seems reasonable. But now, developers collude with politicians to use the law unfairly, to force people to give up their land for private projects.
In 1994, Donald Trump tried to use eminent domain to take a woman’s house so he could create parking spaces for limos outside his casino in Atlantic City.
I confronted him about it, saying: “You’re bullying these people out!”
“To use the word ‘bully,’ John, is very unfair!” He replied. “This is a government case. This is not Donald Trump!”
“Yes, it’s Donald Trump,” I pushed back. “You and your cronies in government working together.”
“Do you want to live in a city where you can’t build schools?” he asked. “A city where you can’t build roads or highways?!”
A court eventually denied Trump’s Atlantic City land grab. That turned out well for everyone, since his casino went bankrupt, and no limos needed to park.
However, judges were less reasonable in another eminent domain case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Susette Kelo lived in a small pink house in New London, Connecticut.
New London politicians decided to sell her land, along with her neighbors’, to a private business called the New London Development Corporation.
New London would then get “development,” they say, and the tax revenue that would bring in.
Eminent domain law forces governments to pay owners “fair value” for their property, but the bureaucrats decide what that value is.
Kelo didn’t want the money. She wanted her home.
I covered her story when she, with the help of the Institute for Justice, fought New London’s government all the way up to the Supreme Court.
They lost. The Court ruled five-to-four in favor of letting the city bulldoze the neighborhood.
I confronted the city’s lawyer: “Politicians can kick you out of your home?”
He replied, “Is this serving an important public purpose? We say it is.”
New London said the new development would raise tax revenue.
That was 20 years ago. Where’s the tax revenue today?
As so often happens, the politicians were wrong. That development never happened.
The land where Kelo’s house once stood is still an empty lot.
As I write, the only thing currently under construction even near where her house was is a government-funded recreation center — that costs taxpayers’ money.
Kelo’s story shocked enough people that many states passed laws limiting politicians’ rights to grab your property.
According to the Institute for Justice, “Since Kelo v. New London, 47 states have strengthened their protections against eminent domain abuse, either through legislation or state supreme court decisions.”
Unfortunately, some places do still allow it.
Officials in the appropriately named town of Dolton, Illinois, propose to use eminent domain law to take the new pope’s childhood home from its current owners. Dolton politicians want to turn it into “a historic site.”
In Toms River, New Jersey, the mayor plans to use eminent domain to seize a church in order to build pickleball courts.
Recently, Georgia’s government approved eminent domain to take parts of dozens of properties so it can build a private railroad that will serve just one rock quarry.
A woman who may lose her land asks, “If this happens, where would it stop?”
Good question.
When politicians and developers collude, no one’s property is safe.
People are getting so incredibly oversensitive that even the trigger warnings now have trigger warnings on them. A regional British museum management body has just released a new “Trigger Toolkit” guide advising relevant institutions upon how best to implement trigger warnings on their collections, in case staff find themselves exposed to “racist and intolerant artefacts” in the display rooms, like a talking Easter Island Head that wants to bring back slavery, or an Egyptian mummy who tries to deny the Holocaust.
More than forty exhibit-related topics were listed as likely to trigger an idiot inside a museum, including, but not limited to, death, divorce, childbirth, debt, violence, politics, classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, warfare, gambling, slavery, “the climate emergency,” disease, policing, the criminal justice system, poverty, natural disasters, and “hateful language”—or “human life,” to put it more efficiently.
The trouble was, of course, that in order to alert readers to the likely presence of such massively triggering themes within any given museum, specific mention of them all had to be made throughout the booklet’s pages…which could potentially trigger certain hyper-delicate readers too. Therefore, the booklet about trigger warnings had to come with a trigger warning printed on it itself, in big red letters of trigger warning.
If trigger warnings need trigger warnings, who’s to say that the trigger-warning trigger warnings do not, in themselves, also need to come with trigger warnings, lest these also offend or alarm people? And, in that case, may the trigger-warning trigger-warning trigger warnings not also need to come with trigger warnings attached likewise? This kind of madness could go on forever, ad infinitum. It’s all positively Orwellian, in fact. Which is rather appropriate as George Orwell’s 1984 has just acquired a brand-new unnecessary trigger warning all its own.
101 Damnations
It has recently been noticed that the official 75th-anniversary edition of 1984 from last year had been published with a new, specially penned foreword, approved by the estate of Orwell himself, from black female author Dolen Perkins-Valdez—which warned those who had never read it before about the prospective triggering content within.
You’d think such warnings might focus largely upon disturbing scenes in which rats are set loose to eat through the main character Winston Smith’s face inside Room 101, but no—instead, they warned us about the text’s excessive whiteness. The book, the author asserted, was “not a classic,” but she had quite “enjoyed the story”—until, that is, she realized that “in Orwell’s novel, there are no black characters at all,” which meant that “As a contemporary reader, I feel myself self-pausing,” as “a sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to [my own] race and ethnicity.”
So her main problem here is that Orwell’s book is somehow racially exclusionary, because, being written in a basically all-white country in 1948, all its characters are white. But the main reason Orwell had only white people in 1984 was not any conscious decision to exclude others, it was just his natural assumption about what Great Britain would be like forty years in the future—i.e., still white, because that is what it always had been, forever.
Dolen Perkins-Valdez’s books, however, are different. Living in a modern, multiracial society like the 21st-century USA, she has a conscious decision to make as an author about what races and ethnicities her characters should be, from an entire smorgasbord of different options. And yet, she chooses overwhelmingly to write about black people—generally black women, and strong, independent black women at that (are there any other kind?).
Doesn’t this make her more racially exclusionary as an author than she accuses Orwell of being?
Poison PEN
Educated at Harvard (instead of a more academically qualified Asian woman, probably), and now a novelist of the precise cloying kind Oprah Winfrey fawns over, in 2020, when George Floyd reached his final chapter, Perkins-Valdez was serving as no less than the Chair of PEN America, the campaign body supposed to stand up for authors’ rights in the face of threats like government censorship. Instead, Perkins-Valdez used her position to issue a joint statement in which PEN “extends its condolences to the family and friends of George Floyd,” even though nobody at PEN probably even knew any of them.
What did George Floyd have to do with authors’ rights? Well, in the aftermath of George’s death, PEN now argued it “must empower artists to chronicle these turbulent times, and we must bring those narratives and conversations into our communities. That is the tradition of literature.”
No, it’s the tradition of propaganda, not of literature—but then, to people like Perkins-Valdez, the two appear essentially indivisible. “As an organization, we devote ourselves to reading and self-education to better understand the fears and frustrations of marginalized communities,” PEN now wrote, as if politics were the sole function of literature, not access to truth or beauty, insights into the eternal verities of the human condition, nor even sheer entertainment or amusement.
Homer, Keats, Yeats, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, even simple laughter merchants like P.G. Wodehouse—none of their work was truly literature at all, according to this mortally limited definition of the term.
Big Brother’s Big Sista
“We are living in the most turbulent moment of this newly-formed century,” continued Perkins-Valdez in the name of PEN, ignoring, say, 9/11, the 2008 financial collapse, the Arab Spring, etc., “but our faith in the power of the written word to transform minds and hearts is unwavering.” Joseph Stalin thought similarly, in terms of his comment that writers were truly the “engineers of human souls.”
To engineer human souls even more, PEN “curated the following reading list” to reeducate literature lovers about race, including Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be a Racist and Ijeoma Oluo’s So You Want to Talk About Race (And if You Don’t Want To, I’ll Make You Do It Anyway)—a long litany of pure, unadulterated race Marxism.
Examine an interview Perkins-Valdez conducted in 2021 with asha bandele, a Black Lives Matter activist who refuses to use capital letters (except when writing the word “Black,” obviously), presumably as they are an alphabetically oppressive white man’s construct; just to annoy her, I have deliberately placed her surname at the start of the following sentence, so it has to be capitalized anyway. Bandele’s book When They Call You a Terrorist (Because You Are One), a memoir coauthored on behalf of BLM founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, had just been added to the curriculum at American University in Washington, D.C., the same city where Perkins-Valdez is now Professor of Awesomely Creative Writing at a separate college.
Even though bandele’s book is certainly not literature, still it appears on the college’s curriculum anyway, as part of American University’s new “Raise Your Voice Program,” which was implemented there following the death of St. George Fentanyl.
But if it’s not literature, why is it being publicly lauded by a creative-writing professor like Perkins-Valdez? Because “The book illustrates key components…[that American University’s new program] discusses, such as intersectionality, systems of oppression, liberation efforts, and cultural celebrations.” In other words, it’s an extended racial indoctrination pamphlet.
In her interview, Perkins-Valdez complains to bandele that “As a black woman, I feel cast into the position of truth-teller in organizations. Why do you think that role is often filled by black women?” Maybe because, as per the stereotype, the more loudmouthed ones are always so volubly angry about everything, even 75-year-old sci-fi books with no kinky-haired characters in them. Forget a “Raise Your Voice Program,” how about starting a “Lower Your Voice Program” for such individuals instead?
White Pages, Black Ink, Green Notes
To make up for 1984 not featuring any darkies, Perkins-Valdez seems to have decided to include an abundance of such entities in her own limited oeuvre. This may seem hypocritical, but as she says, she has to pursue such a path in order to right widespread antiblack systemic literary prejudices of the past: “Traditional publishing has its biases. It’s more difficult for writers of color to navigate, no question. But cream rises to the top.” Not anymore. Cream is white.
Contemporary publishers, good little white liberals to their core, are in fact falling over themselves to print pro-black propaganda from “writers of color” like Dolen Perkins-Valdez, not the reverse like she misleadingly implies, as her entire publishing history tends to prove:
Her breakthrough 2010 book, Wench: A Novel (just in case readers were confused), was about a black slave woman in a sexual relationship with her white master.
Her second novel, Balm: Also a Novel, was about a black healer and a freed black soldier living in Chicago in the aftermath of the Civil War (alongside some white people, as not even she can hide the fact that they once used to live in Chicago too—at least until all the blacks moved in and trashed the local economy).
Her next book, Take My Hand: Look, Everyone, I’ve Written Another Novel!, was about some black women having sinister sterilization-related medical experiments performed upon them by evil white medics.
Best of all, for someone who claims to be so very, very offended by 1984 not having any blacks in it, her latest 2025 book, Happy Land, is set within an all-black rural commune established following the end of slavery. So, while I haven’t read it, I’m guessing it includes nothing but black people. If a contemporary white Boer wrote a novel set in the white separatist South African settlement of Orania, I wonder what she’d think of that?
The History of Herstory
Ironically, as an author of politically correct historical fiction, Perkins-Valdez actually eerily recapitulates the role of 1984’s Winston Smith: Readers of proper books will recall that Winston’s job was to quite literally rewrite history along preapproved Party lines. Perkins-Valdez was acclaimed by black-interest magazine Essence as having “a calling to bring others back to remembrance,” but she seems to do so partly by acting as a spirit medium: “The voices of the [black] past kept calling me, and to this day, I hope that I can do those spirits justice. I know that sounds odd, but I really do believe in the ancestral spirit world.”
Happy Land is based upon an allegedly true legend about a lost all-negro mini-monarchy in post–Civil War America, but hard, detailed evidence for its existence is pretty scarce. So why did Perkins-Valdez believe in it? As she told an interviewer, “I was convinced because I believe in the imagination of black folks…. When we go into those archives and look at all those [incomplete] records, we do have to infer. We do have to interpret.”
If that sounds a bit like “We have to make things up,” then her interviewer seemed to approve, on the grounds that “Throughout my life, I’ve encountered black folk who strongly believe, with or without proof, that our enslaved ancestors were descendants of African royalty.” As this interviewer was called Nefertiti Asanti, was she one of them?
“It’s important we keep teaching these [black] histories so they are not lost,” Perkins-Valdez argues, but what she really appears to wish to transmit down from generation to generation is a narrative of perpetual victimhood for blacks, and a narrative of perpetual guilt for whites. And, what’s more, this tactic works—as proved by George Orwell’s white descendants feeling so “guilty” for the “crime” of 1984 not having any Africans in it that they paid her to write a new trigger-warning preface to the book complaining about the fact.
Of her first book, Wench, it has aptly been said that “The novel looks at what history gets privileged and what gets forgotten.” So does 1984. It’s no wonder Dolen Perkins-Valdez didn’t seem to like George Orwell very much. She sounds like precisely the kind of individual he was warning us about.
The Week’s Most Iran-Gets-a-Nuking, Academic-Lies-a-Puking, and Rappers-Start-a-Duking Headlines
WAR AND PIZZA
Time was all an increase in customer activity at a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant signified was that Bill and Hillary Clinton wanted another fresh young child to rape down in the basement. Last week what an uptick in orders indicated was altogether more geopolitically significant: Israel was about to bomb Iran.
Although the attack was kept secret by Trump and Netanyahu until the last possible moment, staff at pizza joints surrounding the White House and Pentagon figured out something was up when, a few hours before munitions began falling, the number of callout snacks being ordered increased tenfold, a dead giveaway that military planners were bracing themselves for a draining, all-night session of concentrated mullah-bombing.
The “Pentagon Pizza Index” is supposedly a real thing, with an account online, The Pentagon Pizza Report, closely monitoring how many deep-crusts and Full Hawaiians are eaten across the Washington area on a nightly basis; the more purchased, the closer the world is to war, a makeshift culinary Doomsday Clock. The phenomenon was first noted in 1989, just prior to the U.S. invasion of Panama, and is reportedly so reliable that the account monitoring such patterns has 100,000 followers, albeit apparently not in Iran, where Pizza Hut is considered haram (although they have their own knockoff halal anti-capitalist equivalent, the pathetically named Pizza Hat; until 1979, they also had a Burger Shah).
Realizing a potential security risk, top brass immediately issued a statement denying any correlation between pizza orders and military orders, pointing out that the Pentagon building had its own canteen, and employees could easily purchase pizza there. The Pentagon Pizza Report countered this denial by citing an alternative, and probably altogether more reliable, intel source: Footfall at the Pentagon’s nearest gay bar had collapsed dramatically the night Israel’s attacks were launched, too. With all those nice young pizza delivery boys arriving at Langley that evening, there was no longer any need for the top brass to visit, was there?
Meanwhile, President Trump subsequently revealed he knew “exactly” where Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hiding, making him “an easy target” for when U.S.-Israeli forces finally decided to kill him. How did Washington know the location? The Guardian Council of Mullahs must have ordered one too many Ghormeh Sabzi toppings from the Tehran branch of Pizza Hat. Or possibly just one too many fresh young boys from Bill and Hillary Clinton.
YE GODS!
Less willing to bomb Iran in the name of Zion might be conspicuously Jew-baiting black rapper Kanye West, or Ye as he is known these days—or maybe even Ye Ye, as it was misleadingly reported he had changed his title to anew, having filed recent business documents under that name. In fact, this was only the result of intransigent online registration forms requiring his financial manager to fill in both a first name and a surname in computerized boxes with no option to leave either blank; shades of Major Major from Catch-22.
Maybe instead of Ye Ye, the singer should really rechristen himself Yo Yo, as when it comes to the specific issue of Jews, he seems to swing both ways. Having not long ago released a bizarre new Führer-fellatin’ single, “Nigga Heil Hitler,” a few weeks later Kanye abruptly reverse-marched, being now “done with anti-Semitism” and declaring that “After further reflection I’ve come to the realization I’m not a Nazi.” That same excuse certainly worked quite well for Albert Speer at Nuremberg.
By daring to publicly criticize the Jews who he hinted controlled the music industry, Kanye boasted his words now made him “90 percent Jew-proof,” meaning “I am not under Jewish control any more.” Is he sure?
Looking up the word “Ye” online, we can find it has several different meanings in a number of world languages. Besides being the archaic English word for “you,” it also functions as a gender-neutral pronoun in Swahili, is used to indicate a paternal grandfather in Chinese, and refers to an obscure plant of the species Spondias mombin “in some Nigerian contexts”…but it is also the Yiddish word for “yes.”
So, in fact, his new name, Ye Ye—registered against Kanye’s conscious will with the relevant financial authorities by his all-powerful manager—means “Yes Jew, Yes Jew!” in the Jews’ own ancestral tongue. Controlled, puppetlike, to perform their every bidding, even though he doesn’t realize it, False-Consciousness Kanye will be seen in a B-2 stealth bomber dropping bunker-busting warheads on buried Iranian centrifuges in Fordow before the week is out.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Kanye only changed his name in the first place as he considered “West” to be his whitey-given “slave name,” choosing “Ye” instead, as it is the most commonly used word in the King James Bible. The most commonly used word in Kanye’s own voluminous lyrical output appears to be “nigger,” but replacing his slave name with that would not have made much sense even for him.
SHORE LEAVE
Is the entire West becoming ever more Nazi even as we speak, or just the Kanye West portion of it? To celebrate eighty years since the (temporary) liberation of Europe, French authorities have blown taxpayers’ euros on making feeble AI-forged “historical” TikTok propaganda films about the French Resistance to persuade the country’s youth to be more patriotic—some may argue they already are patriotic, just for other countries like Algeria, Cameroon, and Senegal. Unfortunately, being AI-created, said films featured a few minor errors, such as computer-generated Wehrmacht soldiers cheering their own defeat in the Paris streets on Liberation Day.
Why might Nazi troops have cheered their own 1945 downfall? Perhaps because, in the long run, they knew it would transform itself into victory—in the shape of the eventual election of Orange Obersturmbannführer Donald Drumpf across the Atlantic in November 2024.
That is the opinion of Prof. Marci Shore, a onetime Yale University professor and self-confessed “neurotic catastrophist” who gave an interview this week wailing that, as leading academic experts on the history of fascism, she and her husband, Prof. Timothy Snyder, felt they had no option but to flee across the border to Canada following Trump’s election, to seek asylum from incipient Nazi dictatorship there. The fact that Shore and Snyder were already living and working in Canada anyway is but a minor detail.
Being such all-time experts in the history of fascism, Shore and Snyder knew from their “My First Big Nazi Wall Chart” coloring-in display poster (lots of brown pencils necessary) that Adolf Hitler himself had been elected leader of Germany in 1933. Therefore, “The lesson of 1933 is: you get out sooner rather than later.” No, the actual main lesson of 1933 for far-left hysterics like Shore is “Everything I don’t like should be immediately and hyperbolically compared to 1933 in order to spuriously discredit it as being irredeemably evil,” a tactic that, ironically enough, actually comes straight out of 1984, not 1933.
Shore was particularly concerned by “the sight of tanks transported into Washington DC ahead of the military parade” there last week. It was a military parade. What did she think would be paraded through the streets there? Giant Pentagon pizzas on caterpillar tracks?
The fascist-themed fantasies of the “neurotic catastrophist” about the sinister GOP (Germans On Parade) faction just kept on coming. On the morning of Trump’s election, she found herself “lying on the floor of my office, throwing up into a plastic bag.” It’s not Trump’s fault you’re high on crack, Marci. The first time she saw Sarah Palin, meanwhile, “I felt like she was a character right out of the 1930s.” Which one, Betty Boop?
Being Jewish, Shore grew up in Allentown, Pa., surrounded by Holocaust survivors, something that made her “anxious and neurotic since birth”—why, she even came out of her mother’s womb crying. So, in the fearful, tear-and-vomit-filled eyes of Shore, under Donald Trump a kind of second Holocaust may be about to be unleashed any day now.
Yeah, but on Iran, not on the Jews of Allentown. Trump is a man so rabidly “anti-Jewish” that he is currently mulling over whether or not to voluntarily go to war for the Jewish State of Israel in order to prevent what he thinks would be a different second Holocaust of a nuclear variety unleashed against it by a cabal of eschatologically inclined Pizza Hat loyalty-badge customers in Tehran.
“Without a distinction between truth and lies, there is no distinction between good and evil,” Professor Shore concluded. Perhaps best to stop blatantly lying about Donald Trump being Adolf Hitler, then, eh, Marci? Just because there’s an extra Diet Coke being ordered from the Pennsylvania Avenue branch of McDonald’s one night doesn’t mean the President is about to invade Poland. Unless Bibi Netanyahu tells him to, obviously.
YOU CAN’T GET ANY ISRAELIA THAN AZEALIA
If Marci Shore really feels threatened by looming genocide in Trump’s America, then when 2028 comes around perhaps she should cast her next vote for Azealia Banks, the reverse-Kanye black female rapper from Harlem who came out for Jerusalem last week by posting “I’m a Zionist” on her social media accounts.
Why so? Largely because Azealia thinks the true genocidal people in the world these days are Muslims, and not only the Jew-killers of Hamas. “BITCH, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FUCKING BLACK CHILDREN HAVE BEEN MURDERED AT THE HANDS OF ARABS?” she asked one online opponent, a heartening reference to the fact that at least one black woman out there recognizes that more Africans were enslaved and slaughtered by brown Middle Easterners down the centuries than were treated similarly by white Europeans.
At this point, a novel diplomatic proposal occurs. Kanye West is too anti-Jew. Azealia Banks is too anti-Arab. Surely a happy medium is possible. If only the two could be persuaded to get married and have a child, the consequent pH-neutral offspring might come out as a perfect political moderate on the whole vexed issue, the one and only individual who could bring perpetual harmony and equilibrium to the entire Middle East.
Then again, maybe not, as its double-barreled surname would be West-Banks. Come the inevitable bitter celebrity divorce, there’d be little chance of any peaceful settlement taking place there.
EXODUS FROM EGYPT
In response to Banks’ staunch invective against Hamas and Islam, one offended white European called Azealia a “dumb Zio,” before ending his tweet with “Free Palestine.”
“So go free it, honky!!!” she responded. “If u feel so strong, get up and go join Hamas u fucking soft tiddy.”
And that, no doubt, was how last week’s laughable “Global March to Gaza” got started, in which a bunch of 4,000 largely overprivileged, white, and Western people wearing novelty kaffiyehs tried to waltz up to Gaza’s highly militarized eastern border with Egypt and demand Cairo’s troops immediately open the Gates of Hell and let all the Gazans flood in, just like that, because they were there on the scene at last, and all the primitive, backwards brown wog-people had to do what they said now, in the name of anti-colonialist anti-racism. One pale pink British marcher named Tamsin self-identified only as an “empathetic human”—the “em” prefix there was wholly unneeded.
Less empathetic were the marchers’ unwilling hosts. Locals showed their deep levels of appreciation for being told what to do by random foreigners by gathering round the marchers in a big mob, whipping them, and throwing bottles at their heads until the moral tourists all ended up getting arrested by Egyptian police and deported straight back where they came from. “Fuck you, Egypt!” the tanless interlopers then began chanting while imprisoned on a fleet of buses on their way to the airport.
Maybe when the newly anti-Egyptian protesters land back home, they could petition Israel to attack the country in revenge, seize a large strip of its land, and then section off all the Palestinians to live away safely in peace inside there. Being mainly educated in the history classrooms of Prof. Marci Shore, as far as the vast majority of the marchers themselves knew, that particular solution had never before been tried, so it had to have been at least worth a shot.
In the meantime, pizza sales across the entire Arab world continue to rise exponentially. Do Bibi and Donald secretly own shares in Pizza Hat or something? Turns out the Domino’s Effect didn’t just begin and end with the Korean War.
Often on Saturdays, outside a small supermarket in the town in which I live in England, stands a swarthy woman in her 30s who wears a black scarf around her head. She is not Muslim but Moldavian, probably of gypsy background. She tries to sell a publication called The Big Issue to rather reluctant passersby and has an insinuating and obsequiously whining manner that is no doubt intended to arouse pity but—in me, at any rate—arouses only deep irritation and dislike.
The Big Issue was founded in 1991. The idea was for homeless people to sell the magazine on the streets, at a profit to themselves, and thereby take the first step to a better way of life. The vendors had, like drug dealers, a certain “patch” in which they, and they alone, were licensed by the publisher to sell the magazine. The vendors were enjoined to be polite and respectful, and not to turn aggressive when people refused to buy the magazine.
I have bought it intermittently, not because I wanted to read it, but to do a good turn to the vendors. On the whole, they are polite, as they are enjoined to be, though one has the slight suspicion that in other circumstances they might not be quite so polite, indeed quite the reverse. Once I was involved as a witness in a case of murder in which one seller of The Big Issue murdered another in a dispute over the border of their respective patches and left his body in a multistory car park, where it remained for a surprising length of time before discovery. As in the great majority of cases of non-domestic murder these days, video evidence played a large part in the culprit’s conviction. You—we—are being watched.
This sordid murder somewhat reduced my approval of the business model of the magazine. But even if this were the case, the obligation to be polite is potentially of educational value to sellers: Practice makes not only perfect, but habitual.
The content of The Big Issue tends to irritate me, with its flavor of leftist self-righteousness. But it is possible to sympathize with underdogs without belief in their moral superiority or their special insight into economics and other realities. And one should read what one is unlikely to agree with, besides which I bought the publication more as a favor to those who sell it than because I need reading matter.
I spoke to the Moldavian woman outside the supermarket in the few words of Romanian that I possess. Her manner immediately changed, and she ceased her tone of a severely constipated person trying to expel hardened feces. She smiled, revealing the usual steel dentistry.
She asked me whether I had ever been to Romania, and I said that I had. Moreover, perhaps more unusually, I had been (once) to Moldavia.
It was just after the breakup of the Soviet Union. I belonged by co-option to a little busybodying group that monitored the fairness or otherwise of elections in post-Soviet states. I didn’t really like such busybodying, with its inevitable connotation of moral superiority by reason of nationality and national tradition; but I went along for the ride. I inspected prisons and hospitals, both normal and psychiatric, and found the usual defects of apathy tempered by cruelty, incompetence, and lack of resources.
Moldova had been of the nominally autonomous republics of the Soviet Union, and the Soviets had tried to maintain that the Moldovans were not really Romanians, and that the language that they spoke was very different from Romanian. In general, Westerners went along with this shameful fiction; but of course, the history of Moldova in any case was not such as would rejoice the heart of those who believe in the goodness of mankind.
I cannot now remember whether the elections in Moldova were free and fair, but I do remember from my time busybodying about such matters in various formerly Soviet republics that official Western election observers tended to find elections free and fair if their favored candidate won, but unfree and unfair if he didn’t.
But to return to the Moldovan lady in front of the supermarket. I sympathized with her as an individual, as a person; I doubted that her life had been or was an easy one, certainly by comparison with mine. I bought the magazine she was selling and even allowed her to keep the change.
Nevertheless, I could not entirely suppress my irritation that she was present in the country. What possible benefit did she bring to it? How had she arrived? She could hardly have thought of herself, as a gypsy in Moldova, as persecuted to the point of being in danger of her life. And if she did think so, it was unlikely that England would have been the first safe country that she reached. She was in the country by preference, not by necessity or for reasons of safety.
Into the bargain, she was now pregnant. Did she arrive pregnant, or did she become pregnant in England? Who was the father? The mere fact of having a child born in England would give her, de facto, the right of residence. My guess is that the child would be for years a charge on the public purse, as she herself would most likely be. Any money that she made by selling The Big Issue would—unless she were under the thumb of some extorter—be extra, pocket money as it were (but nevertheless, made by honest effort).
Sympathy for individuals is not a good guide to policy. Among other things, bad policy might result in more people to be sympathized with. In effect, the presence of such as the Moldovan woman was imposing forced labor on the population, if taxation be regarded as a form of unfree labor.
We have to treat a line between being naively welcoming to masses, to the great detriment of cities and countries, and hard-hearted to individuals.
On the day I bought The Big Issue from the Moldovan woman, I happened quite by chance on a poem, published in 1911, by Wilfrid Gibson, once a highly regarded poet but now forgotten. He looks at the geraniums on his bedside that he had bought earlier that day from a very poor flower-seller. She had said to him:
“I’ve sold no bunch today, nor touched a bite…
Son, buy six-pennorth; and ’t will mean a bed.”
More than a century later, when poverty of such depth no longer exists, beggars still ask for money to secure them a bed for a night in a hostel.
But Gibson is not sentimental about his flower-seller. Though she is pitiable (in the sense of being worthy of compassion), Gibson does not claim that she is morally immaculate. In fact, she has been a drunken slattern; she has been “Broken with lust and drink.”
The geraniums that he has bought from her will be dead, and possibly so will she:
And yet to-morrow will these blossoms be dead
With all their lively beauty; and to-morrow
May end the light lusts and the heavy sorrow
Of that old body with the nodding head.
The last oath muttered, the last pint drained deep,
She’ll sink, as Cleopatra sank, to sleep;
Nor need to barter blossoms for a bed.
Realism and hard-heartedness—which often go together—are not quite the same thing.
Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is On the Ivory Stages (Mirabeau Press).
As I’ve been pointing out forever, liberals don’t understand analogies, one of the most basic building blocks of logic, at least since Aristotle.
This failing has been on display at MSNBC for some years now. Whenever conservatives demand that the same standards be applied to Donald Trump as are applied to Democrats, MSNBC hosts charge: “Whataboutism!”
That’s not “whataboutism.” It’s called “the rule of law.”
Whataboutism originally referred to the Soviet Union’s practice of covering up the multiple failures of communism — long food lines, shoddy apartments, no electricity, planes crashing, etc. — by saying, But what about the crime rate in the United States? What about the civil rights abuses? What about Watergate?
In other words, whataboutism consists of changing the subject to some random failing of one’s opponent.
[A friend traveling in Russia at the time reported that the Soviets’ saturation coverage of the Watergate hearings did not have its intended effect. Instead of wowing Russians with the deficiencies of capitalism, actual Russians’ main question to my friend about the hearings was: “Do all Americans have such nice shoes?”]
By contrast, analogies, especially in politics and the law, are used to vindicate the principle that like cases should be treated alike.
Liberals hate that. They refuse to accept generally applicable rules. The only question for them is: Whose ox is gored? If it’s Trump, he’s guilty, no further information is needed. But if it’s a lefty who’s done the same thing — or 20 times worse — it’s: How dare you question this man’s character?
On MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski said that equating Trump’s possession of classified documents with Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents was a classic case of whataboutism. Those aren’t even like cases — they’re identical ones.
Stephanie Ruhle said the same thing about comparisons of the Trump indictments to the Biden family’s corruption, such as foreign interests funneling millions of dollars to the president’s son, Hunter Biden, for nonexistent services. Whataboutism!
Mehdi Hasan, failing to grasp that whataboutism — at a bare minimum — requires some sort of comparison, called any mention of Hunter Biden whataboutism.
A classic example of liberals’ situational view of justice happened to another friend after he got picked to serve on a jury while at Yale law school. When his fellow law students found out it was a rape case, they demanded that he find the defendant guilty.
Yes, but you don’t know the facts of the case.
What facts?
The defendant is black.
You have to acquit!
Today, liberals are using their refusal to treat like cases alike to denounce Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles in order to protect freeways, police cars, citizens, federal agents and buildings from violent mobs.
The New York Times called Trump’s order “both ahistoric and based on false pretenses.” Appalled that he, the president of the United States, had sent the Guard “on his own volition,” the paper noted that “the National Guard is typically brought into American cities … when local authorities require additional resources or manpower.”
The word “typically” does a lot of work in that sentence. The two most celebrated instances of a president using U.S. troops against tumultuous citizens both occurred in direct opposition to the states’ governors.
In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne against American citizens in Little Rock, Arkansas, after Bill Clinton’s mentor, Gov. Orval Faubus, had called out the National Guard to prevent nine black students from entering the local segregated high school. Eisenhower sent federal troops to ensure that the nine could enter the school.
In other words, Eisenhower’s order pitted the president’s troops against the governor’s troops, strongly indicating that the governor had not requested them.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized the National Guard to remove a sitting governor from the “schoolhouse door.” Alabama Gov. George Wallace had vowed to stand at the school and physically block the entry of two black students. (Fun fact: Twenty years later, Wallace won a fourth term as governor with the overwhelming support of black voters.)
How does the Times deal with the fact that these sacralized events involved presidents deploying troops against the wishes of governors?
The paper simply cites one of the cases, as if correcting a perjurious statement, then quickly moves on with a non sequitur:
“The last time this presidential authority was used over a governor’s objections was when John F. Kennedy overruled the governor of Alabama and sent troops to desegregate the University of Alabama in 1963. Supporters of states’ rights and segregation howled at the time and, in the usual corners, are still howling about it.”
Who cares if anyone is howling? Besides being irrelevant, it’s also false. No one is howling. American citizens’ rights were being violated.
The threshold for sending federal troops has — in Trump’s case — grown to colossal proportions.
Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s dumber younger brother in California, District Court Judge Charles Breyer, countermanded Trump’s deployment of troops to L.A. on the grounds that Justice Department lawyers had “not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”
According to liberals, what constitutes a “violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole” is hurting the feelings of 11 black students. (Also violating their constitutional right to enroll in specific schools.)
Dumb Breyer conceded that the administration had “pointed to several instances of violence” in L.A., including:
“Some protesters threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects at Federal Protective Service officers guarding a parking lot gate'”;
“[S]ome protesters attempted ‘to use large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram'”;
“Some of the protesters used ‘chairs, dumpsters, and other items as weapons'”;
“Two federal buildings were vandalized and sustained minor damage.”
OK, so apart from all that it was mostly peaceful.
In liberals’ wildest imaginations, nothing this destructive ever happened in Little Rock or Tuscaloosa. No cars were set on fire, no buildings vandalized, no concrete chunks thrown, no dumpsters used as battering rams.
The world-shaking, democracy-ending violent uprisings “against the government as a whole” in Little Rock and Tuscaloosa mostly consisted of verbal threats, racist taunts, spitting and the throwing of eggs, sticks and rocks. (Also mean chants: “Two, four, six, eight! We don’t want to integrate!”)
But Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy thought that was enough to deploy federal troops in express defiance of the states’ governors. So does history.
Liberals can’t grasp that Trump’s deployment of troops is a fortiori constitutional, necessary and, indeed, heroic because …
ANALOGIES SECTION:
Aristotle is to logic, as:
a) Elephants are to rhinoceroses;
b) Boats are to ships;
c) Liberals are to blithering idiocy and blank incomprehension.
