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.”
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.
LONG LIVE OMAR THORTON (sic)
LONG LIVE MARK ESSEX!
(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.
Why?
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.
]]>George Gascon, the Soros-backed mass-murdering district attorney, was up against a slew of candidates looking to take him down. Gascon had to get over 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff in our “top two” primary system, and the friend to all rapists and murderers didn’t even come close.
Gascon managed 25.2 percent. That’s it. He got 369,854 votes. His two top challengers, who ran on “dump Gascon,” got a combined 428,529. Totaling the votes of every candidate who opposed Gascon, even the little fishes, you get 1,098,772.
1,098,772 against Gascon vs. 369,854 for him. Things look good for the November general.
So let’s examine how we’re gonna screw it up.
Conservative author Peachy Keenan is Fox’s favorite pseudonymous “mommy blogger.” She has a huge audience on TV and Twitter, and fans like Tucker Carlson and Mollie Hemingway.
Also, she’s dumb as a brick. And not one of those good bricks you can use as a bookend. One of those crumbly bricks that’d lose a fight with a plate-glass window.
Following Super Tuesday, Peachy posted an election map that went viral on rightist Twitter. The map appeared to show that, in the race to fill Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat, only coastal California went blue. Everywhere else: red!
“Perfect visual proof that Democrats are the party of out of touch coastal elites,” crowed Peachy. The rest of California went for Garvey; he’s a shoo-in for November!
Now, to be fair, Peachy didn’t create that map; she simply misrepresented it. It’s actually an NY Times interactive map detailing the total vote count for Garvey vs. his three Dem opponents: Schiff, Porter, and Lee. The screenshot posted by Peachy was just the Garvey vs. Schiff numbers, isolated. Almost all of those “red counties” go blue IF you count Garvey vs. the three Dems combined. For example, in red-leaning San Diego County, Garvey did beat Schiff, 205,139 to 163,178. But, if you add the votes for Porter and Lee, you get Garvey 205,139 to Schiff, Porter, and Lee’s combined 274,249.
To be clear, there are counties on that map that are truly red (Kern—27,310 for Garvey, 20,532 for all three Dems combined, Tulare—23,025 for Garvey, 15,995 for all three Dems…Garvey will win those counties easily in November). But by misrepresenting that map—by showing Garvey vs. Schiff without explaining that it was actually Garvey vs. three Dems and Garvey lost against the cumulative Dem vote in most of those “red” counties, Peachy’s not doing rightists any favors, because she’s just created a new MAGA vote-fraud myth that will endure for years.
If Gascon loses in November, Soros will not embarrass himself by claiming “voter fraud.” He and his equally evil son will recalibrate and attack again elsewhere. MAGAs, on the other hand…if Garvey loses in November, and honestly, it’s likely he will, MAGAs will use Peachy’s map as proof that the election was STOLLEN!
“Look at this map! It showed every inland county voted Garvey in the primary. There’s no way he could’ve lost in the general except for DEEP STATE FRAUD! Let’s storm Sacramento!”
You cannot show anything fake to MAGAs, because MAGAs believe everything they see (they’re the David St. Hubbins of politics). Their victimization worldview demands a constant flow of new proof that “they cheated us again!”
Peachy’s map will become part of MAGA lore should Garvey lose. It’ll fuel a new generation of Kari Lake fantasists.
Thanks, Peach.
Oh, and thanks for this, too. That whole “coastal elites” thing. Her fraudulently presented map makes it appear as though every part of Cali went red except for a narrow strip of “coastal elites.” And I might’ve been tolerant of such nonsense had it come from an outsider. But Peachy lives in L.A. County! The blue parts of that map only look “coastal” when viewed from space. In fact, that blue strip goes a hundred miles inland. The blue on the map only looks like a narrow strip because the map’s so zoomed out. Zoom in, and much of that blue is very far indeed from the beach. Very not “coastal,” and very not “elite.”
“Perfect visual proof that Democrats are the party of out of touch coastal elites”? So, South Central L.A. is “coastal elite”? Ladera Heights (64 percent black)? Inglewood (39 percent black)? Compton (25 percent black)?
Lancaster (21 percent black) is included in that blue strip. It’s 71 miles from any beach. If that makes it “coastal,” I’d hate to be a real estate agent there who’s asked by a prospective buyer, “Hey, show me the nearest beach trail!” Even some of the areas in the blue strip that are somewhat “coastal,” like Inglewood (6.7 miles from the beach) and Carson (23 percent black, seven miles from the beach), are hardly “elite.” Carson, home of Hustler Casino, liquor stores, and old ladies murdered by muggers while using their Hustler Casino winnings at liquor stores, is about as elite as my ass, and lemme tell you, my ass ain’t elite (even with the top hat I had tattooed on it in ’98).
Worse still, some of the actual coastal elite areas in Peachy’s map are politically quite red. Rolling Hills, which sits on the cliffs above the ocean in that blue strip (can’t get more “coastal” than that) has the third-highest median home value in the entire U.S. Not California, but the entire U.S. And it went for Trump in 2016 and 2020 (it’s only included in the blue strip because the map is of counties, not cities).
Like so many of today’s rightists—and this applies to the Fox talking heads, the MAGAs, and the alt-rightists—Peachy loves framing everything in the most simpleminded of terms:
The sh*libs control all of the nice places—the ones with beaches, trees, scenic hikes, perfect weather. Red state CA gets sunbaked wastes, meth farms, rubble, and smog.
This is such an idiotic statement, I don’t even know where to start. The truly red parts of this state include some of the most breathtaking rural, mountainous areas in the nation. Places that still have horse trails and parks with no homeless. Oh, and majority white residents. But like all Fox-approved yappers, Peachy don’t ever wanna mention race!
I often get slammed by rightists for talking down to them like children. And sure, I’m a bitter drunken scold. But I’ll never blow smoke up your ass. It’s the Fox and MAGA-approved “personalities” who actually treat you like children, by feeding you lies and then gloating about how you lap ’em up.
Like that Garvey/Schiff map. Peachy gloated, “2.1M views. This post brought us together.” As of now, it has 11.3 million views.
Yes, some of you do lap it up. But I ain’t the one serving it to you.
Okay, at this point you’re likely asking, “Dave, you bitter drunken scold, what’s the point? It seems like you’re just beating up on a popular but dim-witted rightist mommy blogger.”
Okay, here’s the third-act reveal of the “point.” And it has to do with how we might screw up an easy win against Gascon/Soros.
Here’s Peachy tweeting about that race on primary night: “This is the only race I care about. There’s a demon running LA county—and he’s winning LOL. Top 2 go to a runofff. Who’s Hochman? Another maniac?”
So she claims it’s “the only race she cares about,” but she hasn’t taken the five minutes needed to familiarize herself with Gascon’s main opponent? Hochman’s a tough-as-nails law & order former prosecutor. He’s the anti-Gascon. But Peachy prefers misrepresented maps to actual research (if you’d call finding out about Hochman “research.” I’d call it “within the grasp of a retarded lemur”).
Peachy ludicrously claimed that Gascon was “winning,” because she can’t do the simple math of comparing his votes to the cumulative votes of his opponents.
“LOL.”
Rightist influencers care not for details. You’re being spoon-fed by morons who are themselves spoon-fed because things like independent research and basic math are beyond them.
More than that, the simple-minded crap about California’s political geography—and how many times have I drunkenly scolded you guys about the right’s idiotic take on Beverly Hills (“It’s whur da left-wing culubrities dun live, gyuk-gyuk-gyuk)?—isn’t just stupid but harmful. Dismissing the areas that are friendly to your cause means (a) you won’t campaign where the fucking votes are, and (b) you won’t fundraise where the fucking MONEY is.
As I’ve said many times, north (red) Beverly Hills is your friend. Votes and money. Same thing with Rolling Hills. Votes and even more money. But people like Peachy—and, sorry to say, some of you—would rather insult the people who can help rather than accept the assistance they wish to give.
There are other nuances the simpletons ignore by clumsily painting everything red or blue in the first place. There are a great many parts of L.A. County that voted for Biden but rejected the last few Soros-backed pro-crime anarcho-tyranny ballot initiatives. Recognize that.
El Segundo, for example, my home for several years, is one of those beach cities Peachy dismisses as “coastal elite,” when in fact it’s a white enclave heavily comprised of people who work for the Chevron refinery for which the city’s named.
I’ve never thought of refinery workers as “elites,” but then again I don’t appear on Fox, either. So what do I know?
In fact, El Segundo is heavenly. One of the safest cities in the state, pristine beaches, community cookouts and fireworks in the massive Main Street park that has a half-dozen baseball diamonds and hot dog stands and no basketball courts. These are neither “elites” nor “shitlibs”; these are the whites the GOP should be courting, not alienating.
Yes, El Segundo went for Biden. Also yes, it went against the Dem-backed “no bail; criminals walk free” and “restore affirmative action” ballot initiatives. These residents are persuadables, and in down-ballot nonpartisan races, persuadables matter.
So how ’bout we don’t piss them off when something as important as defeating Soros is on the line?
Lives depend on this. If Gascon wins reelection, innocent people will die.
You don’t have to want to help, but Christ, don’t harm. Don’t spread fakes, don’t insult the communities where the money, the red voters, and the persuadables are. Learn about a race before tweeting about it. If you have a following, use it intelligently and not just for LULZ and viral frauds. You don’t even have to like L.A. or California. But a defeat for Soros here will help shift the momentum against him elsewhere. Gascon losing America’s most populous county to his polar opposite could turn the tide against the BLM/Floyd-inspired soft-on-crime insanity that, yes, even gripped certain “red” states.
There’s a difference between not helping and actively harming. All I ask is that you not do the latter in the Gascon race.
I know…I’m pissing in the wind.
Still, even a bitter drunken scold can dream.
]]>Just so you know, us opinion journalists were hoping for a long, eventful primary…because we need material. As Eric Swalwell laments to his Chinese concubines, it wasn’t supposed to climax this quick.
But climax it has, and only the fanatics are pleased. The “god-king Trump” MAGAs on one end, and the “Biden’s sharp as ever and he whipped inflation” delusionals on the other. This is gonna be one of those elections in which the average voter has to decide which turd’s baggage outweighs the other’s and which douche’s negatives can be more easily overlooked.
So let’s have some fun with local races. Here’s Part I of ol’ Dave’s Super Tuesday recap.
Schiff Steals Home
Gavin Newsom wasn’t on the ballot in Cali last week, but his presence was felt nonetheless. When Dianne Feinstein died, there were three prominent Dems who wanted her seat: beady-eyed Jew Adam Schiff, obese ugly white woman Katie Porter, and fossilized black radical Barbara Lee of Oakland (aka “the one place in California even Mexicans fear to tread”).
Newsom punted the appointment, selecting a seat-warmer who wouldn’t seek a full term. That way, he could avoid getting debanked by Schiff, shot by Lee, or sat on by Porter.
A Jew, a fat bimbo, and a black thug walk into a bar. And Newsom leaves.
Wise man.
Schiff may be even wiser. Take note, MAGAs: This is how you carry out a successful op, and it ain’t with fake delegates. Schiff spent $35 million to elevate Republican Steve Garvey to second place in the top 2 open primary. In doing so, he eliminated the chance he might have to run against Porter or Lee in the general. Schiff’s position is that he can handily beat a GOP—even a sports legend. Going up against Porter or Lee would’ve robbed Schiff of the black vote (Lee’s black, and Porter’s the kind of homely fat-ass white woman the average black man sees as an attainable paramour).
But now that the general will be a Dem Jew against a GOP white, Schiff figures he’s on easy street.
Maybe, maybe not. The last GOP to win a statewide race here was Schwarzenegger, and I’ve long said that only another celebrity Republican might stand a chance to repeat that feat. Garvey made a respectable showing in his second-place finish, but that’s because the Dem vote was split three ways. Add Schiff’s votes to Porter’s and Lee’s, and you’ll see that Garvey has a steep uphill climb.
On the plus side, Garvey has the boomer vote sewn up; if you’re over 50 and a lifelong Californian, the man’s name recognition is massive. And boomers do vote in record numbers.
My advice to Garvey: Work the beans. Anyone who’s been to Dodger Stadium the past decade knows that it’s beanier than Tijuana. You won’t hear one word of English. California beans, who don’t vote in record numbers—I mean, they literally don’t vote, no matter how easy the legislature makes it with mail-in ballots—love baseball. And they don’t like politics. Sure, beans lean left politically, but what does it matter if they don’t act on it?
Mr. Garvey, I’m speakin’ to you as a pal here: Don’t try to talk politics to the Mexicans. They do not care about politics. But they love sports, food, music, and respeto.
Go to every bean area in the state, from East L.A. to the San Joaquin Valley, and set up baseball field day meet-’n’-greets. Plenty of food, mariachis, and bol de la béis. Help the niños with their swing. Tell every adult male that they shoulda been in las ligas mayores, the way they handle that bat. Mexican family men love being respected in front of their wife and kids.
Again, these are not political people. So you don’t have to be. Just give them a good day of baseball and respect.
If you can persuade Fernando Valenzuela to join you, boffo! And at the end of the field day, every attendee should get a photo taken with you that’s printed up as a baseball card. A keepsake to show off, something to make them feel respected and respectable to the frijoles back home.
That’s what these people want. Do that all summer long, and you might have a shot.
Sometimes a slugger gets beaned on purpose. And that’s my advice to you.
You’re welcome.
The Yellow Star of Texas
It was the story of the year! And it was all mine. Texas Congressional District 7, encompassing parts of Houston and Sugar Land, was reliably right-wing for, like, ever. But then it was redistricted to incorporate darkest Alief.
Alief so black it don’t know its founding father.
Alief so black Angelina Jolie adopts its highways.
Alief so black the traffic arteries got sickle cell.
Alief so black it was purchased from Mexico on layaway.
The redistricting led to the first victory (in 2018) for a Dem since 1964. But GOPs still see it as flippable.
The two top Republicans running in the primary last Tuesday?
Mbongo Mbabwe, a Nigerian immigrant, and Caroline Kane, an over-the-hill bleach-blonde “Christian mom for liberty.”
Two newcomers, one big difference: Kane pals around with Nazis. She’s a regular on The Stew Peters Show (I alluded to this last week), spewing opinions on morality and Jesus as Peters denies the Holocaust and talks about beating up Jews.
When Kane got the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle, I was ecstatic. Nobody had made the Kane/Peters connection yet. It was my story, my baby! With the Chronicle’s endorsement, I figured Kane would be a shoo-in, and I’d get eight months of material raking her over the “coles.”
I had dreams of riding the story to national prominence, fulfilling my lifelong ambition to be on The View.
Whoopi: “So David, tell us about this shocking story from Texas.”
David: “Holy shit it stinks in here! I mean, I always figured you old bats never wash, but Jesus Christ the studio smells like a free clinic during a yeast infection outbreak.”
(Yes, I’m now doing Family Guy-style cutaways in my column.)
A week before the election, I emailed Kane:
On his February 10th show, Holocaust-denying Peters hosted an “artist” named Arthur Kwon Lee, who refers to Jews as “sewer dwellers.” Affirming that view, Peters stated, “The problem isn’t Zionism, the problem is Jews,” adding, “Jews are cowards. They fake being Jews,” again reiterating, “What do you think the problem is with America? The Jews.”
Lee then states that the time has come to “physically fight” the Jews, to which Peters replies, “I agree. I agree a thousand percent.” Lee states, “Right now the fight is between whites and Jews, and all other ethnicities have to pick a side.” Peters nods in agreement, adding, “Grab a weapon.”
This sounds rather like a call to violence. Does this give you pause regarding appearing on Peters’ show again? If not, I’d very much like to know your reasons, which I’ll print in full in my upcoming column.
Kane, a sniveling coward, refused to respond.
I emailed the entire Houston Chronicle editorial board asking if Kane’s collaboration with Peters might cause them to review their endorsement. They refused to reply.
I never knew Texas was so full of cowards. Lone Star State? More like Don Knotts State.
Prepping for Kane’s primary victory, I even had two potential nicknames for her: “Lord Yee-Haw-Haw” and “Eva Braunfels.”
I am so precious.
But the Texas GOP voters in CD7 chose the Nigerian! By a huge margin! 42 percent to Kane’s 24 percent. Red-state GOPs chose the Bongo over the past-her-prime blonde liberty mom (as with Katie Porter and black men, Kane’s exactly the kind of used-up prune most GOP men can actually attain).
But, though Mbongo came close to 50 percent, he just missed the mark. So there’ll be a runoff on May 28.
The race is actually quite interesting. Kenneth Omoruyi (no, his name’s not Mbongo; I just like being a dick) is a highly educated man who worked in the oil and gas industry in Lagos. He ran a campaign talking about substantive issues like energy policy, while Kane’s entire campaign was her mindlessly repeating “Jesus” and “liberty” as she palled around with psychotic Jew-haters.
And now we have a runoff in May. So I’d like to issue a challenge: Stew Peters, Nick Fuentes, Ron Unz, Candace Owens, these are the imbeciles who believe that the right’s future lies in Jew-hatred and Holocaust denial. I say it doesn’t. How about we use May 28 as a test? I’ll put up $5,000 that Kane gets her clock cleaned by those red-state Republicans. Will any Nazi take that bet? You’ll have two and a half months to let the RED STATERS of CD7 know that Kane is the BASED candidate! The candidate of Holohoax and Protocols of Zion! She should win handily over some African savage, no? Because we’re not talking about the general, but a closed red-state GOP runoff.
Who’ll take my bet? Peters? I know that $5,000 is nothing to you. Fuentes? With all the welfare you get from supporters, you spend $5,000 a day just on hush money to Ali Alexander’s teenage victims.
I say the average GOP voter is repelled by Nazism and Holocaust denial. You say otherwise, that it’s a winning strategy. Let’s put that to the test on May 28. C’mon, guys—humiliate me! Prove me wrong!
I have the courage of my convictions. Do you?
Several days before Super Tuesday, another Stew Peters acolyte—Jew-hating Scottish leftist George Galloway—coasted to victory in a U.K. by-election. He’s now an MP (his first act after winning? A video supporting his good pal “Tooker Carlson”). And last Tuesday in L.A., far-left black Muslim Khallid al-Alim, who thinks Jews faked everything from the Holocaust to Sandy Hook, surged to a runoff thanks to $690,000 from the UTLA teachers’ union, which bankrolled his campaign of Jew-bashing.
“Kill them bleedin’ Jews” Galloway was embraced by U.K. leftists. “Them muthafuckin’ Jews faked the Holocaust” al-Alim made it to a runoff thanks to Dem voters and the teachers’ union.
The lesson to rightists? Leave the Jew-hatred to the degenerate left. It works for them. It doesn’t work for you. The heart and soul of the GOP is working-class whites. These are good people. Moral people. They are not the hate-filled Nazis of Ibram Kendi’s fever dreams. They don’t respond well to “beat up Jews,” and they respond even worse to blasphemers who say, “God commands us to beat up Jews.”
The road to victory for rightists doesn’t start with Stew Peters and his fellow Nazis. It ends with them.
But maybe I’m wrong. So will one of the based Nazibois put up five grand on the May 28 CD7 runoff?
I hope so.
Okay, next week in Part II, the George Gascon DA race, and what the primary told us about the only Jew I would beat up—George Soros.
]]>Author/strategist Ryan James Girdusky tweeted, “If only people went to the streets to demand change in the name of Laken Riley, like they did for George Floyd.” Ryan, one of the sharpest young guys on the scene today, was making a rhetorical point.
But all the same, I’d like to address it.
A day or so after Ryan’s tweet, an Air Force dumbass named Aaron Bushnell immolated himself outside the Israeli Embassy in D.C. Prior to becoming Mr. Burns, the boyish ginger declared that he was striking a blow against “the ruling class” by reducing himself to ash in the name of “freeing Palestine” from “the colonizers.”
Bushnell was a self-described “anarchist” from San Antonio—a known breeding ground for anarchists (“Yee-haw! I just rustled me up some Bakunin!”). Within hours of Bushnell’s Texas BBQ, a certain segment of MAGA magically forgot all about Laken Riley. It was a perfect illustration of the “distracted boyfriend” meme: white dude hanging with Riley loses interest when a Jew-hating charred corpse walks past.
To be clear, most ordinary MAGAs were not mourning Bushnell. But the MAGAs who were—and this addresses Ryan Girdusky’s point—were the ones most likely to “go to the streets.” The Charlottesville types. Indeed, the MAGAs weeping for burning Bushnell were the ones at the intersection of Tucker Carlson, Stew Peters, Nick Fuentes, and Alex Jones. Jones’ wacky conspiracies, Peters taking those conspiracies and casting them as Jewish plots, Fuentes’ youthful street activism and meme-savvy Jew-hatred, and Tucker’s innovative coalition of MAGAs and anti-establishment, anti-Israel leftists like Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, and Max Blumenthal.
It matters not the size of this dank corner of MAGA; I’m not discussing votes. What matters is, here’s your street warriors. Your brawlers. And one white girl dead at the hands of a bean border-jumper will not motivate them.
These are big men with big dreams (until the feds arrest them, at which point they cry like little girls). They’re only interested in big game; they want to take down the brains of the operation, not the semi-retarded bean illegals and black street hoods. Here lies, and I’m repeating myself from earlier columns, the risk in the rise of blatant anti-Jewishness in that dank but vocal corner of MAGA: It makes the activists less interested in pedestrian matters involving brown “refugees” and black thugs. More than that, it breeds sympathy for the people actually doing physical harm to ordinary white Americans. The notion of the Jew as the “big bad” who plays all the innocent races against each other does nothing but sow sentimentality for the poor widdle blacky wapists and the dear widdle bwownie murderers.
Because we’re all just victims of the Jews!
I’ve been walking among far-rightists—gutter rightists, not the classy kind—my entire adult life. At heart, most of these losers are sentimentalists, because they’re losers. There’s a part of them, desperately desiring to excuse their failures in life, that craves brotherhood with other losers—yes, even blacks and browns—against a common elite foe…the one who ruined us both! The one who keeps us both down!
That’s why Trump was so effortlessly able to shift from fighting immigration to fighting the “Deep State.” The border is what motivated voters in 2016. But to the Trump cultists who’ve made the cult their identity, the border pales in comparison to the importance of fighting the elites. It wasn’t the border that motivated Trump’s detritus to storm the Capitol on J6; it was the notion of battling the fixers! The manipulators! Trump could never mention the border again and his diehards wouldn’t care. They want him to go after the masterminds!
Pre-Trump (1989/1990), thousands of “patriots” would drive to the U.S. Mexico border night after night as part of the “light up the border” movement, in which car and truck headlights were aimed at the Mexican side, blinding and discouraging illegal crossers. This was a big deal at the time, and it actually led to a couple of border-tightening legislative successes. I’m not suggesting anything like that could work today (certainly not in California anymore), but the point is, those MAGAs who are open to physical confrontation wouldn’t do it even if it were proposed as a strategy.
They don’t want to catch small fish. A scared little brown boy shivering in the desert would melt their mawkish hearts. These MAGAs want the Jews! The global exploiters who set that poor little brown boy on his desperate journey.
A few weeks ago, a good friend of mine who’s a prominent figure on the right (the classy right, not my gutter right) chastised me over lunch for devoting too much space to guys like Stew Peters. And I get it; from my friend’s perspective, it’s all “who’s Stew Peters?”
But for me, when it comes to politics, I’m like a black man lookin’ at a naked girl: I focus on the ass-end. Fish do not rot from the head down. As with most animals, rot starts in the gut, where the bacteria dwells. Millions of microbial organisms, ineffectual on their own, but when they get together in large enough numbers, you get stank, and rot.
Peters, the rightist host/influencer who’s gone from producing the fraudulent Died Suddenly film to advocating Holocaust denial to last week applauding as a guest called for direct physical violence against Jews, is MAGA inner circle. His podcast pals have included Paul Gosar, Mark Meadows, Roger Stone, Mike Lindell, Mike Flynn, Pete Navarro, and Kari Lake. Peters has been throwing around a lot of money recently. He’s very well funded because certain donors see him as the future of MAGA, and they may be right: One of his acolytes just got the endorsement of a mainstream newspaper in a Super Tuesday GOP primary.
I’ll report on the outcome of that race next week, after the results are in. But to be clear, Peters had a guest on his show last week who said it’s time to “fight physically” against the Jews, to which Peters replied, “I agree a thousand percent,” adding “grab a weapon.” And now a Peters collaborator is this close to winning a major GOP primary with a major press endorsement.
What a mess. But this is where we are, and someone’s gotta cover it, so it might as well be me since these far-right hell-circles are my briar patch. Stopping crime, closing the border, these are simple things with simple solutions that both parties used to acknowledge. This shit’s not byzantine. But rightist “sooper-sleuths” on the hunt for Baron Rothschild and his directed-energy weapons make it byzantine. The simple stuff—the electorally effective stuff—bores the likes of Peters, Carlson, and Jones. So no, MAGAs are not gonna “take to the streets” over Laken Riley, and if they did, if you twisted some arms and got a hundred MAGAs to show up for a demonstration on her behalf, they’d arrive in Camp Auschwitz shirts and swastika hats, alienating voters and likely forcing Riley’s parents to denounce the event.
But “dank corner” MAGAs sure as hell will immolate over the Jews. And the sentimentality I mentioned earlier regarding the “brotherhood of losers” goes deeper than race. Hence Tucker’s genius innovation of bringing in the anti–“Deep State,” anti-Israel leftists like Dore, Tracey, Greenwald, Maté, and Blumenthal. Because just as Jew-hatred allows losers of all colors to unite, Tuck’s cross-ideological lovefest allows those same losers to say, “Liberal or conservative, we really are all brothers! It’s the global Jew octopus wot plays us against each other!”
After that Air Force idiot fricasseed himself last week (dude stood military-style erect while engulfed in flames for 41 seconds before collapsing! Let’s see some pansy-ass Buddhist vegetarian do that), the typical conservative influencers did the typical conservative thing and scanned Bushnell’s social media so they could proclaim, “He was a liberal! He was a liberal!”
That’s what most of you want to hear. A guy like Andy Ngo only kngows how to play that one simple tune: liberal (boo!) vs. conservative (yay!). But the real story is that the flaming faggot occupied a place on the anti-Israel (and by extension anti-Biden) left that’s home to a great, and growing, amount of crossover with MAGA. That’s why I was more interested in the MAGAs who were weeping for the guy. And those MAGAs were giving him the kind of props they’d never waste on some dumb ol’ murdered nursing student, as they directed hate against Israel that they’d never direct against the dumb ol’ bean who murdered the dumb ol’ nursing student.
That nobody’s going to immolate themselves over Laken Riley is a good thing; it’s an idiotic way to register discontent. Border issues and rampant crime need only inspire enough passion to get people to vote; save the matches for the cigars once MAGA finally wins an actual election again.
The problem is, Trump’s single-issue 2016 immigration campaign is ancient history. He seems less-than-interested in it, as does his base. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, calling Trump the “build the wall candidate” is like calling O.J. Simpson a “Heisman-winning rusher.” Yeah, at one time that’s what he was known for. Then other shit happened.
Trump’s best bet is that Biden continues to fumble the border. But relying on the other guy to screw up while offering little on your own is never a sound strategy (or did you learn nothing from Fetterman v. Oz?).
And now, with the GOP presidential primary having concluded way earlier than expected (Nikki Haley can pray to a parade of multi-armed elephants, it ain’t gonna save her), you have the worst aspects of the MAGA base—the vocal, belligerent, aggressive, enemy-hunting sooper-sleuths—with a lot of time on their hands. At least when they were going after DeSantis, they stayed away from Jews. But now? They’re like toddlers, plopped in front of the TV by their mom to watch their favorite Disney film so she can sleep for a few hours, but the DVD breaks and the screen goes blank so now they’re gonna run around the house getting into God knows what…for the next eight months!
And these dank-corner MAGA toddlers’ overactive little minds are gonna be restless. And it’s just gonna take one of ’em to heed the advice of Stew Peters and “grab a weapon” to “fight physically” against “the Jews” and presto, Biden’s bumbles get tossed from the news cycle.
And that’s why I cover these things. To try to nip this kind of shit in the bud.
This was a long way to go to answer my friend from our lunch dispute. But I have an ironclad rule: I don’t argue politics over food.
It ruins a good meal.
]]>“Psst…hey, mister, you wanna designer suit for only $30? Check out my man Lyle! He got so many expensive brands, we call him ‘Amaani Lyle.’”
“Shouldn’t that be Armani Lyle?”
“Naw, dude, Amaani suits are even better! Just as long as you don’t expose them to air or move around while wearing ’em.”
But in fact, Amaani Lyle is a failed writer who inadvertently brought about one of the last major defeats for “woke” in Hollywood. Indeed, while her aim had been to restrict free speech and creativity, her defeat set legal precedent that, for almost two decades, has been used to further free speech and creativity—an outcome she regrets to this day.
Unfortunately, that precedent may be in jeopardy. And that would be bad news inside Hollywood, and out.
Intro
In my Jan. 9 column, I wrote:
Now every woman in every action film is superhuman. It’s as tedious as it is predictable. And along with overcorrection comes the parade of morons who can’t or won’t see the overcorrection. You’ll still find imbeciles claiming that there’s not enough “female representation” in action films, when in fact, these days, that’s all there is. Overcorrection thrives because the dumbest among us don’t comprehend it.
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the dumbest among us. After the unprecedented failure of the new grrrrrl powerrrr superhero film Madame Web—which says a lot because the past year has seen nothing but superhero film failures—last week Hollywood Reporter vegetables Pamela McClintock and James Hibberd blamed the disastrous box office not on female superhero oversaturation, but rather on the absurd notion that Sony “took a risk” and “tried something different” by “making a superhero movie for women and young girls.”
The literal opposite of the reality of the situation.
In fact, the overcorrection I discussed in January extends not just to scripts but to the people who write them. The majority of all TV staff writers and story editors are now female and “BIPOC,” and that’s based on WGA figures from 2020 (it’s likely worse now since the introduction of streaming quotas).
But…those at the networks and studios who are still interested in quality over quotas—and yes, such people do exist, if only for reasons of self-preservation, as woke content keeps losing money—have had, since 2006, one weapon on their side: a legal precedent that’s allowed execs to tell whiny identity hires, “Sorry, my hands are tied!”
It was the only tool the quality-conscious had that could override HR and DEI.
Lyle v. Warner Bros.
The Lyle Case
Amaani Lyle was a hack TV script supervisor who worked on uninspired 1990s “black fare” for Nickelodeon like Kenan & Kel and All That, and lesser-known BET shows like Dig Dat Ass, Dr. Bootycall MD, and Hobart and the Ho (starring Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee). In 1999 she was hired as an assistant to the writers on Friends, then entering its sixth season. She had one job: take notes in the writers’ room as the creatives bandied ideas. She was warned that writers’ rooms are by definition a free-for-all haven away from execs and audiences where writers hash out jokes in a raw, often vulgar manner.
In other words, exactly where you don’t want an angry black woman with a chip on her shoulder.
Lyle took the job and, after four months when it turned out she’d vastly overstated her typing/stenography skills, she was let go. In retaliation, she sued. Her complaint was that having to witness the writers being vulgar constituted a violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscriptions regarding workplace harassment (sexual and racial).
A Superior Court judge threw out the suit, an Appeals Court reversed that, and eventually the entire matter ended up before the California Supreme Court. In a unanimous (liberals and conservatives in unison) April 2006 decision, Lyle’s suit was tossed and she was kicked to the curb so hard her weave landed a block away.
Reading the decision now, it’s almost like the justices were trying to forestall today’s epidemic of entertainment-industry speech policing. The gist of the decision, which I’ll paraphrase, was “Nobody be talkin’ to you, bitch.” The crude and vulgar language expressed by the writers was not directed at Lyle, didn’t reference her, didn’t have anything to do with her. She was a passive recorder only; her job was to take notes.
The record discloses that most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace…. The fact that certain discussions did not lead to specific jokes or dialogue airing on the show merely reflected the creative process at work and did not serve to convert such nondirected conduct into harassment because of sex…. FEHA is not a “civility code” and [is] not designed to rid the workplace of vulgarity.
The term “nondirected conduct” comes up frequently in the ruling.
The justices made it clear that FEHA does not apply if (a) complainant hears other people saying things that offend her, (b) the offensive speech is not directed at complainant, and (c) exposure to such speech is reasonably assumed to come with the terms of complainant’s employment.
To show what a different time this was, even though it was only eighteen years ago, 131 entertainment-industry leaders submitted an amicus defending Warners against the angry black woman. Every TV network, every guild, every producer, even leftist stalwarts like Larry David and leftist institutions like the L.A. Times, took the side against a black woman.
Hard to imagine, now.
And they won. Even harder to imagine now.
In a blistering concurrence, Justice Ming Chin (a Pete Wilson appointee, now retired) focused not so much on whether being in the same room as offensive speech not directed at you constitutes a FEHA violation, but on the damage that would have been done to free speech had Lyle prevailed.
This case has very little to do with sexual harassment and very much to do with core First Amendment free speech rights. The writers of the television show, Friends, were engaged in a creative process—writing adult comedy—when the alleged harassing conduct occurred. The First Amendment protects creativity. Lawsuits like this one, directed at restricting the creative process in a workplace whose very business is speech related, present a clear and present danger to fundamental free speech rights.
Chin was on fire:
It’s hard to imagine All in the Family having been successfully written if the writers and others involved in the creative process had to fear lawsuits by employees who claimed to be offended by the process of discovering what worked and did not work, what was funny and what was not funny, that led to the racial and ethnic humor actually used in the show.
Blazin’!
The First Amendment protects attempts at creativity that end in failure. In the creative context, free speech is critical while the competing interest—protecting employees involved in the creative process against offensive language and conduct not directed at them—is, in comparison, minimal. Neither plaintiff nor anyone else is required to become part of a creative team. But those who choose to join a creative team should not be allowed to complain that some of the creativity was offensive or that behavior not directed at them was unnecessary to the creative process.
You go, Chin! And for the past eighteen years, the few remaining network and studio execs with integrity have used Chin’s concurrence to put the new generation of Amaani Lyles in their place. Which absolutely kills the original Amaani Lyle, who bitched to Buzzfeed (where else?) in 2021 that she hates her inadvertent legacy of free expression. In the piece, titled “Warner Bros. Keeps Citing a ‘Friends’ Harassment Lawsuit in HR Trainings,” Lyle accused networks of “still scaring the shit out of people with my case.”
“The legacy Lyle’s journey to the California Supreme Court created hasn’t been what she hoped for all those years ago,” Buzzfeed noted, adding that “more than a dozen former employees at Warner Bros. say Lyle’s failed lawsuit has been used for years by managers and in HR trainings to impress on new hires that free speech in creative environments is protected.”
Buzzfeed presents that as a negative! That debt-ridden cancerous tumor can’t shut down quickly enough for me.
The Twist
The Lyle precedent is about to be tested in court, ironically because another black chick is trying to hide behind it. “Behind” being the key term—hippopotamine twerking flautist Lizzo is using Lyle as her defense against the harassment, discrimination, and “hostile workplace” accusations brought against her by several former backup dancers. In assessing Lizzo’s motion to dismiss, L.A. Superior Court Judge Mark Epstein invoked Lyle and pretty much stated that the Lizzo case could be a good test of the precedent:
I’m pushing it to the extreme, but if you have workplace harassment which was equally directed to everybody, irrespective of their gender, it would not be covered by FEHA because there’s no different conduct for one sex as opposed to another sex? Maybe that’s not a fair reading of Lyle.
It isn’t. Lyle isn’t about whether the “harassment” is only directed at one gender or two. It’s about whether it’s directed at the complainant at all. Nondirected conduct. Stated plainly, Lyle means, “passive observers have no standing.” And, as Epstein allowed the bulk of the case against Lizzo to proceed, it remains to be seen if the eventual outcome weakens Lyle or not. What’s clear is that Lizzo’s attorneys will be invoking Lyle, so that makes it a case to watch even if you’re not a fan of giant black asses.
“Passive observers have no standing” is a hugely important precedent in an America in which blacks and trannies constantly claim to have incurred injury from shit that wasn’t directed at them: a white person’s hairstyle or vocabulary, a white person’s tweets or artistic endeavors. A hetero’s use of traditional pronouns; a mom’s belief that women exist. Every day, the aggrieved claim “standing” where they have none. And while Lyle was certainly narrow, in that it dealt with the workplace and FEHA, its larger message needs to be shoved in the faces of whiners across the nation.
“We weren’t talking to you; shut the fuck up and leave if you don’t like it.”
And with women and BIPOCs—professional sentries bred to not mind their business—the new majority among Hollywood writers, Lyle may be the only hope left for at least a few good films and TV shows to be made each year.
Postscript: Amaani Lyle left Hollywood after her humiliating defeat. Guess where she found employment?
The Pentagon!
Hate Hollywood all you like, but there are even woker institutions that will actively recruit the detritus Hollywood flushes.
]]>As anyone who knows the Cole origin story is aware, my biological father was the Beverly Hills surgeon/personal physician to the stars who’s accused of killing Elvis by getting him hooked on drugs and feeding his habit. Dr. Cole absolutely was a pusher, and Elvis wasn’t his only client. He was the go-to guy for the rich and famous when they needed morphine, uppers, downers, whatever.
[In Norm Macdonald voice] You know, I’m starting to think he was not a good doctor.
But there’s the irony; he actually was quite good, as a surgeon and researcher. He helped develop organ transplant anti-rejection drugs, and he worked on the earliest version of what would eventually become Viagra. So the next time you take the blue pill to get stiff, realize that there’s a little bit of Dave in that pill, and you’ll be flaccid again in no time.
As a GP, he gave free treatment to the elderly—never charged a penny…while also physically assaulting the women in his life (including my mom).
Humans are complicated like that.
I never knew the guy because he went to prison when I was still a baby. The pink Cadillac Elvis gave him in gratitude for the ludes was confiscated for child support, so thanks, King, for the Christmas toys you inadvertently bought me.
There’s a fine line people have difficulty walking. It involves, on one hand, the recognition that doctors can, and often will, do harm. But on the other hand, “alternative medicine” practitioners are worse, as they’re held to no standards. The problem is, folks want to believe in something. They want a team. Team thee science or team chakras and crystals. Having a team is reassuring; you don’t have to analyze everything individually. “If the team endorses it, I’m in!”
Covid drew the battle lines between the “I believe thee science” crowd (who can forget the impassioned oratory of Nancy Pelosi in 2020: “science science science science science science science”), and the “I don’t believe thee science” crowd (people who turned healthy skepticism into bizarre conspiracies and batty cures).
My view of medical science is simple: If you’re shot, if you’re in a car accident, doctors work miracles. The extent to which doctors have learned how to stitch broken people back together again is awe-inspiring. Trauma surgeons do things every hour that would’ve been considered impossible a hundred years ago.
But regarding new “wonder drugs” (like Propulsid, which my gastroenterologist gave me in 1996 before it turned out to be a murder-drug), regarding more complex matters than surgery, I’m unimpressed. The surgeon in the operating room repairing Daquan’s bullet-riddled body is in a real-time fight. All that matters is skill; there’s no time for graft. On the other hand, new vaccines or drugs that go through pharmaceutical companies and the FDA and pharma reps who pay off doctors, well, there are a lot of potentially very flawed humans in that chain. A few too many for my liking.
I doubt anything in my lifetime did as much harm to public trust in medical experts as the Covid hystericals making “trust thee experts” mandatory. Long-term, thee experts lost that one. They won the battle in 2020 and 2021 when they locked us down, closed beaches, and enforced fictions like “six feet of separation,” but big-picture, I think those things sowed more skepticism than trust of “experts.”
And good…except it also drove a lot of folks to the other team. Which is not good.
That said, of the two teams, I tend to hold the one with the money, power, and state affiliation to the higher standard.
Remember in 2016 when the British Medical Journal published a paper claiming that a whopping one-third of all Americans who die in a hospital perish via medical error? Indeed, the paper’s authors—Martin Makary and Michael Daniel of Johns Hopkins—put the total annual figure of malpractice deaths in the U.S. at 251,454, which would make medical error the third leading cause of death in the entire nation after cancer and heart disease.
Needless to say, there was massive blowback from the medical establishment. Some of it idiotic—McGill University’s in-house Rain Man Jonathan Jarry argued that the paper was “weaponized by the NRA!” But other criticisms were legitimate. The paper employed extrapolation without breaking down which groups of Americans are most at risk of medical error. The critics noted that 10 percent of patients at U.S. hospitals are women delivering babies, and their mortality rate is exceptionally low.
Yes, because such patients are typically young, and even Africans living in mud can deliver babies. It ain’t rocket science. Even Jarrey, a retard, concedes that it’s the “over 65” crowd, the Medicare cash cows, who suffer the brunt of malpractice deaths. The Association of Health Care Journalists’ Mary Jaklevic agreed. Sure, there’s a plague of elderly deaths via “preventable malpractice,” but “mostly in people with less than three months to live.”
Uh, how do you know how long they’d live if they hadn’t been malpracticed?
A rebuttal to the Makary/Daniel paper in the BMJ also ceded that it’s mainly Medicare patients who are at risk, adding the neat twist that just because an elderly person dies following malpractice doesn’t mean the malpractice caused the death because the old fart was likely gonna croak anyway. “When errors are followed by death, it’s only rarely straightforward to adjudicate the extent to which error contributed to death.” Sure, but I’ll bet the 80-year-old who wasn’t “errored” has a better shot at living than the one who was.
In 2014, when my 85-year-old mom, suffering from rapidly advancing Alzheimer’s, went into a Westside hospital for a procedure that could’ve been done at home but our doctor “forgot” to tell us, she developed Clostridium difficile (c-diff), a hospital-acquired infection that even the BMJ “rebuttal” admits massacres the elderly like Hannibal Lecter in a seniors home. The c-diff exacerbated her Crohn’s Disease, so now she had Alzheimer’s and a potentially fatal infection coupled with chronic bowel issues. Leaving her overnight, I noticed that only one guardrail on her hospital bed was up. She could easily roll off the other side and drop three feet onto the hard floor. The doctor told me that under California law (and this is true), it’s illegal to raise both guardrails on the bed of any patient with dementia or Alzheimer’s. I couldn’t understand why. Due to the Alzheimer’s, coupled with the infection, my mom had no idea where she was. She could easily fall out of bed and hurt herself badly. I pointed out to the doctor that I saw plenty of non-dementia patients in bed with both rails up.
I’d find out that the California guardrail law exists to give dementia patients an “escape.” Because their mind is gone, because they’re easy targets, there’s the fear that they might be abused by hospital staff. With one side of the bed as an escape route, they can get away!
Wait…leftist California is front lines of “trust thee experts.” Yet at the same time, it’s state law that dementia patients must have an escape route from “thee experts.” If we can’t trust doctors and nurses around dementia patients, if Sacramento felt the need to pass a law to make sure dementia patients have an escape route should thee experts harm them, why should we trust thee experts about Covid or anything else?
No worries, the hospital said. For only a huge chunk of money, I can hire a “minder” to sit by my mom’s bedside all night making sure she doesn’t roll out.
It’s all a grift, and one in which hospitals are willing to sow fear of medical professionals in order to con the emotionally distraught families of dementia sufferers into forking over cash (“minders” aren’t Medicare-covered).
That makes me trust the medical establishment even less, because it’s willing to throw its own under the bus (“beware! Your mom may need to escape from us!”) in order to bleed distraught relatives dry.
The punchline? I paid for the “minder,” who left her post, and my mom rolled out of bed and broke her pelvis. She lived her last months in pain.
Cut to Christmas Eve 2018. My 84-year-old dad’s legs failed him (this is not my Elvis-killing biological dad but the stepdad who raised me, a U.S. Army veteran and as good a man as ever lived). Overnight, he could no longer walk. I told him I had to call an ambulance. He begged me not to. He knew what hospitals do to the elderly; he said he’d rather crawl than go to one of those death factories. But what could I do? I had to find out what happened to his legs. I assured him I’d have him taken to a different hospital—Cedars Sinai, the best in California.
And they killed him. I made it clear to the admitting physician that I’d just tapered my dad off benzodiazepines, which he’d been taking for his nerves since my mom’s death. If you know benzos, you know that once you’ve tapered off, you can’t have them reintroduced into your system in great quantity. I made certain the doctor noted that on the chart. And the next day, as I was asleep, the head nurse flooded my dad with benzos. And the doctor in charge was like, “Oy, it was not on the ‘to give’ list, but it also wasn’t on the ‘not to give’ list.”
My dad was practically comatose, but a few days later he started coming out of it, and the nurses flooded him with benzos again. And then he went fully comatose and they began tube-feeding him and he got a hospital-acquired infection and never regained consciousness.
Daily Beast once described disdain for “dancing nurse” videos as “impossible hatred.”
Oh no, assholes. It’s possible. Real possible.
My dad died within three weeks of me sending him to a hospital after he begged me not to. For those of you who ask if I have any regrets for the Holocaust work I did 32 years ago, my response is, maybe I do maybe I don’t but if I do, those regrets can wait the fuck in line because I have worse ones.
My attitude toward thee experts is very much shaped by my personal experiences. I have a biological dad who practiced malpractice, a stepdad who straight-up died from malpractice, and a mom who may not have died directly from malpractice (eventually, the Alzheimer’s would’ve killed her), but it was certainly a contributing factor, due to the c-diff and the injuries she sustained in the fall that only occurred because California hospitals want more revenue by claiming doctors are rapist Frankensteins.
Maybe malpractice isn’t as bad as the BMJ report suggests, but if it’s rare, what are the odds I’d witness it with all three parents?
Again, that doesn’t mean flock to chakras and crystals.
Thee experts deserve a fair hearing, but never blind trust.
]]>Twelve inches in one night, which breaks L.A.’s record (though not Boebert’s).
Remember the merciless September 2022 SoCal heat wave, when every red-state rightist gyuck-gyucker tweeted “L.A. can’t keep the lights on; they’s a’ havin’ blackouts”—even though we didn’t have a single blackout? And remember what I wrote in my Sept. 13, 2022 column? “If you lived in SoCal you’d know that our blackouts are more often caused by rain than heat, because our infrastructure’s built for the latter not the former.” And guess what—we finally got a blackout last week. Not a long one—only seven hours, but a blackout all the same.
From rain.
Exactly as I tried to tell you people two years ago.
Now, how’d I know that it’s rain that causes blackouts in this county, not heat? Well, if you live in a place long enough, and I’ve lived in L.A. 55 years, which I think qualifies as “long enough,” you develop an expertise. A person who’s lived in L.A. 55 years simply knows the place better than a person who’s never set foot outside Appalachia (and of course that goes both ways; I’m unqualified to lecture Appalachians on their outhouses, stills, and incest).
Covid, and the post-Covid era (Fauci: “We pulled that ‘six feet of separation’ thing out of our asses”), really messed with the concept of “expert.” Who’s the expert? The dude with the Ph.D.? The dude with the life experience? The doctor who’s right 90 percent of the time but called it wrong on ventilators? The pot-smoking alternative-medicine shaman who’s wrong 90 percent of the time but called it right on vitamin D?
So I thought I’d pen a few pieces on the notion of “expert.”
Let’s get back to that SoCal rain. SoCal’s weather is cyclical. A few wet years, a few dry years. It’s always been that way. But then “climate experts” began exploiting the dry years to sow panic that rain was never coming back. After two record dry years in 2014 and 2015, during which the “experts” decreed that rain was over, done, forever, we had a record wet season 2016–2017. At the time, February 2017, I wrote about how, because of the “experts,” California had stopped building reservoirs, because why build reservoirs if rain’s gone for good?
And now, after the record-breaking wet season of 2023 and what’s shaping up to be an even wetter one in 2024, even Gavin Newsom—arguably the most ideologically rigid governor in the state’s history—is finally admitting that the “experts” were wrong and we do need new reservoirs to hold the rain from the wet years so we can use them during the dry ones.
That seems like common sense, but not in an era in which asthmatics had their inhalers discontinued because they were killing the planet but billionaires’ private jets are allowed to fly daily.
Newsom’s fast-tracked a new reservoir. Standing in his way? The climate “experts” who refuse to admit they were wrong about reservoirs, and the drunken Injuns they’re using as proxies. Under California law, a public works project can be halted if “indigenous natives” claim it harms their culture, and a group of liquored-up ugh-amugh-ughs are trying to hold up the new reservoir by declaring that the dam harms their (and this is a direct quote) “spiritually important fish.”
Honestly, if your faith is based on a crappie, your faith is crappy.
Here’s the funny (or unfunny, depending on your perspective) part: As Newsom is lobbying for a new reservoir, the “experts” and Injuns are dismantling the ones we have. While Newsom—this very month—fast-tracked the Sites Reservoir project in Northern Cal, the state—this very month—is dismantling four reservoirs in Northern Cal. Yes, at the same time that Gavin conceded, “We need more reservoirs,” the state is building one and destroying four. The dismantling of the four Klamath dams/reservoirs—which supply water and power to much of the state—is described by the AP as “the largest dam removal project in United States history” and by PBS/OPB as “the world’s largest dam removal.”
And why’s it being done? To “free from dams” (again, in the words of the AP) “fish that are culturally and spiritually important to several Native American tribes in the area.”
If this seems retarded to you—ordering the construction of one new NorCal reservoir to manage water while spending $500 million (which is just the projected cost—expect the final bill to be around $2 billion) to dismantle four because Injuns think guppies are gods, you’re correct; it’s heap big retarded.
But more importantly for this conversation, it’s a contradiction. There are government-sanctioned “experts” on both sides. On one side, the water management people telling Newsom (using hand puppets because he’s not smart enough to understand graphs) “if we store rain during wet years, we can use it during dry years!” and on the other, there’s Stanford’s Newsha Ajami—an Iranian, but not one of the good Beverly Hills ones who fled the Ayatollah in 1979 (Ajami’s not an expat but a young, Iran-raised akbar)—who’s the driving force behind destroying the reservoirs because, in her words, in order to save “aquatic species” we must rely not on water storage but “water reuse and recycling” (processed sewage—“if Third Worlders drink poo, so must you”) and “demand-side management” (a euphemism for “stop showering, infidels. If Arabs smell pee-ew, so must you!”).
Now, you’re likely thinking, how can one group of California “experts” be saying “build more reservoirs” while another is saying “destroy all reservoirs”? If there is a “thee science,” why aren’t the water management “experts” concerned that there’s a split in which some experts take one position while others take a wholly contradictory one?
Well, it’s because government-anointed “experts” only like to debunk the bunk from lowlife commoners. Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, etc. And yes, their bunk is indeed bunk. But when one government-approved expert disagrees with another government-approved expert, each can totally live with the contradiction, because a public fight might expose the fact that “thee scientists” can’t agree on “thee science.” Publicizing this inconvenient truth might empower commoner scum to embrace the bunk that isn’t government-sanctioned.
I’ll give you another example of Injuns, water, and experts, this one not in California (because I know you guys; if you read something that’s CA-based you dismiss it as “well, that’s them nutty Cal-ee-fornians; that could never happen here”).
Remember the viral story last month about the William Penn statue in Philly’s Welcome Park? In 1755, Penn’s grandson gave the park to an Injun tribe called the Haudenosaunee (not to be confused with the Hadanosauna, a tribe that never owned a sweat lodge). Last year, a group of six squaws visited the park, and they decided it wasn’t “native” enough. And while the obvious remedy would’ve been to install an open bar and smallpox station, the National Park Service decided to remove the statue of the guy whose grandson gave the redskins the park in the first place.
Reading the actual complaint of the featherheads, their main beef wasn’t the statue, but the absence of water features (ponds, waterfalls, fountains). According to Haudenosaunee leader Wa’kerakátste (star of the hit show Wa’kerakátste Texas Ranger), the lack of water made the Injuns feel “choked,” although that was probably just phlegm from their TB.
But indeed, Welcome Park offers no water. Sure, it can be argued that nothing in 43 percent black Philly should feature anything that might require swimming (when almost half your population can drown in a birdbath, you generally avoid building fountains). But the fact is, across the nation, in the late 1990s up to around 2012, it was a crusade on the part of “climate change” cultists to remove water features from parks.
Even though features like fountains and man-made streams recycle water, the climate loons demanded that they be shut down anyway because the very sight of running water might encourage kids to leave the tap running at home (“we must keep from children the beautiful sound of cascading water, lest they get any ideas!”), and because the motors that operate fountains add to the CARBON CRISIS!
So during that period, late-1990s/early-2000s, “green experts” like Amy Vickers, in-house water-management commissar at USA Today, New York Times, Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal & Constitution, CNN, and NPR (and policy consultant for New York and Boston city government), lobbied for all outdoor water features to be “banned.” Ditto “experts” in Oregon (where it never rains!), who demanded that “waterfalls, ponds, and fountains” be “drained.” Nevada also banned all new water features. Even Florida (pre-DeSantis) restricted water features.
When I was a kid, my mom worked as a director of the L.A. County Museum of Art. And as she’d be working, I’d be exploring the museum grounds. LACMA had a man-made stream in the park behind the museum, with a waterfall and guppies and tadpoles, and it was my favorite place to be (L.A. has great beaches, but not many waterfalls, so it was novel to me).
In the early 2000s, the museum shut off the water and filled the stream with dirt; last time I visited, the stream was a dry weed-ridden ditch.
Because God forbid an American museum ever offer something aesthetically pleasing.
Still, the transition of the beautiful stream to a filthy landfill was necessary to fight climate change.
Except…
Turns out the “experts” were wrong. In a shift in “thee science” that went totally unnoticed by everyone, “climate change” kingpins have now realized that water features don’t contribute to “global warming,” but fight it.
The U.N. (2022):
Fountains can decrease surrounding air temperatures by 3°C and its cooling effect can be felt up to 35 metres away.
The European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (2023):
A water spray from a fountain has an even greater cooling effect because of the large contact surface of the water and air, which stimulates evaporation. Cooling effect by evaporation also occurs when water spray is in contact with the skin, decreasing body temperature.
Institute of Physics (2017):
Fountains are an important part of the measures to create a comfortable, environmentally friendly urban human environment.
World Economic Forum (2021):
Water features make cities more climate-change resilient.
Yep, they took away my childhood waterfall, and deprived today’s children of ever seeing it, for nothing.
So yeah, water’s coming back to Philly because Injuns demand it for spiritual reasons, and it’s being removed from California because Injuns demand it for spiritual reasons. And if this seems like a poor basis for deciding “scientific truth,” it is.
Welcome to “thee science,” which we’re supposed to trust…even though “thee scientists” make decisions based on magical fish.
Next week in Part II, my very personal reason for being skeptical of “experts.”
]]>I’ve known a few suicides in my time, and that’s never been the cause. It’s usually crippling depression.
But anyway…
The right has its own version of the “now I’ve seen everything <KABLAM>” trope. It’s “now I don’t believe anything.”
And the “kablam” is figurative, a self-imposed disabling of the frontal lobe, not via bullet but bullshit.
We can study the phenomenon by examining the marijuana legalization debate.
Pot decriminalizers were never satisfied with the “free choice” argument. Potheads are evangelists—I’ve never met one who doesn’t preach the virtues of weed. If pot’s illegal, if everyone from Reagan to Big Tobacco wants it banned, it must be good. Pot propaganda, which was huge in the 1980s and ’90s, crowed about how pot heals! It’s natural medicine; no Big Pharma! With enough pot, we could save redwoods by growing hemp and end pharmaceutical dependency by huffing on an innocent little plant.
Now that by-and-large everybody can light up to their heart’s content, we’re seeing very serious side effects, both individual (health issues) and societal (the “competency crisis” I discussed last week. Pot is neck-and-neck with DEI as the prime causational factor, and truth be told, for a lot of jobs I’d prefer a mediocre black who’s sober to a higher-IQ white who’s stoned).
Throughout the legalization debate, not enough people asked, “Putting decriminalization aside, is this shit as good for you as the propagandists say?”
A similar thing happened on the right when social media began cracking down on “conspiracy theories” following the 2016 election, and post-2020 when the Biden Administration created (with the assistance of the press) the “misinformation Stasi.” The wackiest wackbags on the net—Alex Jones, Andrew Anglin, Nick Fuentes—found themselves social-media banned, and rightists became like potheads. It wasn’t enough to argue for “choice;” one had to preach benefit.
“I’ll bet ‘they’re’ keeping this information from us because ‘they’ know that these truths are our key to freedom!”
That the people making the decisions to suppress “misinfo” were such subhuman grotesqueries—from Biden’s censorship czar Nina Jankowicz to Jack Dorsey’s Punjabi poo-flinger Parag Agrawal—only heightened the belief that a malevolent “they” was purposely denying “we the people” (and please, MAGA, you need to tweet that phrase more; it’s not even remotely corny) the truth.
That the “misinfo” censors drew no distinction between the factually provable (“black crime stats are high” —Jared Taylor) and the schizophrenically stupid (“Jews faked the Holocaust and drink adrenochrome” —Ron Unz) only served to link the commonsensical to the zero-sensical in the minds of rightists (I’m not saying this was calculated, but if leftists did execute an “op” to manipulate the right into bundling black crime and closed borders with Holocaust denial, turning rightists into dipshits who can’t embrace one without the other, it’s been the most effective op ever).
Social media banning and Biden Administration “misinfo” crusading created the same dynamic we saw regarding marijuana decriminalization. The dumbest among us couldn’t just argue “free choice.” Rather, the banned “substance” had to be presented as the key to overcoming all evil. A magical cure-all withheld from “we the people” (again, MAGAs, consider including that phrase in your tweets every now and then) by an oppressive and malevolent “they.”
“Allowing” Unz, Jones, Anglin, Fuentes, isn’t enough. They must be embraced, as they are the path to victory!
Say rightists who haven’t won a single victory since adopting that view.
Jones, Unz, and the massive-following Holocaust denial MAGA-nuts like Stew Peters, Owen Benjamin, etc., are pollutants. That doesn’t mean they should be banned, but they’re a purely negative force. Their sole purpose is to detach rightists from reality, to submerge them in a sea of “everything’s a false flag” and “everything’s Jew trickery” and “reality itself cannot be believed.” This is, of course, a callback to my column two weeks ago in which I explained why Holocaust denial is growing so rapidly on the right. It’s a tool, employed expertly by Unz in particular, to make you say “now I don’t believe anything.”
If “they” could fake the Holocaust, then “they” could fake 9/11, J6, October 7th, and every mass shooting from Sandy Hook to the one that’ll likely happen between when I write this and when you read it.
I’m not arguing that any speech should be banned. I’m counseling you to avoid the trap of “if ‘they’ want it banned, it must be true.”
Like I said, if leftists were running an op to manipulate the right into trading real-world politics for voter-alienating fantasy, they couldn’t be doing a better job than they are now. But it isn’t an op; it’s organic. On the left, you have a mix of people who possess a genuine concern for misinformation (yes, some folks sincerely believe that Holocaust denial shouldn’t be online. Their methods may be wrong, but they’re not “withholding the truth” from you) coupled with shameless partisan hacks who deceitfully mislabel as disinfo accurate stories like the Hunter laptop to steer political events. And on the right, there are the other shameless hacks—the “influencers” who deceitfully tether Holocaust denial to issues that matter, but also, there are sincere, ordinary rightists who are simply dissatisfied with reality (and I can’t see how any rightist could, today, be anything but dissatisfied with reality after so many defeats), so they cling to detachment as cope, Novocaine, like a pot user. No malice, just escapism.
But the shameless hacks on the left have a bunch of wins in their column. Making the Hunter laptop story seem like a Russia-backed conspiracy theory may have swayed an election. Can you name one electoral success that’s come from the rightist fad of “now I don’t believe anything! Not the Holocaust, not the moon landing, not the Paul Pelosi assault”?
“Now I don’t believe anything” has zero wins in its column.
Yes, leftists and rightists have hacks and liars in their corner who promote reality detachment. The difference is, leftist reality detachment accomplishes things, be it burying the laptop story, or furthering anarcho-tyranny (what’s more reality-detached than “the best way to dissuade crime is to not punish criminals,” yet that nonsense has won dozens of DA races), or destroying the things leftists hate most, like white people (saying “whites must be removed from positions of responsibility” is lunatic, yet it’s happening) and biological reality (“some souls are born in the wrong body, so children require surgical and chemical intervention to correct nature’s error”—what could possibly be more reality-detached than that? Yet leftists have spun it into a billion-dollar child mutilation industry that even has GOP governors in its pocket).
My point is, leftists can show genuine gain from their bullshit. 2020 influenced by the laptop cover-up, blacks out of prison or not prosecuted at all, whites out of jobs or not getting hired, and a generation of children with scrambled brains who think biology is a “cis conspiracy.”
But I’ll ask again, can you name any electoral gains for the right thanks to denying the Holocaust or the Pelosi attack or Sandy Hook or J6?
I can show you plenty of losses. Can you name one gain? Has that path won an election? Closed a border? Put a Daquan behind bars? Won a white guy his job back? Saved a preteen girl from genital butchery?
It’s not just that leftists are better at this kind of thing—though they certainly are—it’s that when leftists employ reality detachment it’s usually for a cause. There’s a goal. But some of you guys embrace reality detachment for purely personal reasons. You’re disheartened and unhappy that political/societal events are not favoring you, so you get lost in fantasy. The Unz comments section is your marijuana. You can live there, far away from real life, and light up till you’re numb.
I’ll close with this: After I attacked Poso the Clown’s “Taylor Swift is an op” viral mania last week, the harlequin himself doubled down (as did his followers) by claiming that the op extends to the entire NFL—the season and the Super Bowl are/were rigged so that the Swift op can ensure Biden’s reelection.
As “proof,” Poso tweeted a screenshot from CNN. His caption read: “CNN is now calling it a conspiracy theory to talk about the very thing CNN was reporting in the morning.” Poso claimed that the CNN screencap proves that the Taylor Swift op is genuine.
And what did the screencap show? What did CNN actually say?
“Taylor Swift may have driven 30,000+ new voter registrations in 2018.”
To repeat my point from last week, doing something the correct way is not an “op,” and anyone who sees normalcy as conspiracy is mentally unwell. Yes, Swift—a Democrat—encourages her followers to register to vote. She doesn’t tweet Holocaust denial memes; she seeks to influence events in a practical way.
That’s how it’s supposed to go. A popular celebrity using influence to make an impact electorally.
Now, let’s examine how some of the right’s “cool celebrities” used—and blew—their cred. Gina Carano, as untalented an actress as ever sullied a greenscreen, won the “lucky idiot” lottery and became the lead on a mega-viral big-ratings Star Wars spin-off. She could’ve spent that cred on voter registration, but she blew it all on a Holocaust meme.
Curt Schilling, a baseball legend, could’ve used his Gen-X sports cred on voter registration, but he lost it all on…yes…a Holocaust meme.
Nick Searcy had tremendous across-the-political-spectrum cred when he costarred on Justified…but now he spends his time making “documentaries” that claim J6 was a hoax.
Ted Nugent? A rock & roll legend who, despite his well-known conservatism, was always welcome on mainstream talk shows. Then he tweeted a “know your enemy” meme of Jews with the Star of David branded on their foreheads.
Roseanne Barr was on top of the world with her sitcom reboot. Now she slums with Tucker as they discuss how the world is run by demons that can only be defeated by questioning WWII history.
Kanye? Well, you know that tale.
I could go on.
Rightist celebs die on a hill of memes. Leftist celebs are far more likely to focus their influence on things like winning elections.
Rightist reality detachment is a curse, as are the people who promote it. And if you help them, even if only by Twitter-following Holocaust deniers like Peters and Benjamin, you’re one of the baddies (“I just do it for the LULZ!” is no excuse – your “follow” increases their visibility).
Do one positive real-world thing today; unfollow a “now I don’t believe anything” rightist influencer, or remove that Unz bookmark.
Baby steps. We all have to take ’em before we can grow up and walk tall.
]]>From September 2023: “The GOP is lucky as hell that Dems haven’t realized just how unstoppable a ‘1994 Democrat’ would be today, especially in city and state elections.”
By “1994 Democrat” I meant a Dem who’s tough on crime, against open borders, and not into the tranny shit (which wasn’t even an issue in ’94) while still being pro-choice.
“Should Democrats ever realize that going back to that 1994 vibe would be an ultimate stake through the heart of a GOP that’s dying among swing voters thanks to Trumpism on one end and pro-life extremism on the other, GOP losses would be profound, and that’s saying a lot considering how substantial those losses have already been over the past five years.”
And guess what? John Fetterman got the memo. Not necessarily from me, because the point I was making was actually one of my most obvious. So obvious, in fact, that even a man recovering from a stroke could grasp it.
Only today’s rightists are dumb enough to never see the most obvious move on a chessboard (that’s what happens when you play in 4D).
By bringing back the “Blue Dog Democrat”—taking on the Biden Administration on crime and open borders (indeed, becoming Biden’s loudest Democrat critic regarding immigration), taking on his own party over the hypocrisy of removing Santos while coddling Menendez, protecting U.S. Steel, taking on the CCP over grabbing American land, taking on “the Squad” over Muslim terrorists, and even daring to mention the genocide of whites in South Africa—Fetterman’s become, according to polls, “the most popular senator in America,” with a 76 percent approval rating (and only 7 percent disapproval).
After Fetterman defiantly told NBC News, “I am not a progressive,” he became a target of Pennsylvania’s far-leftists, who feel “betrayed.” Because yeah, in his earlier years, Fetterman seemed to be one of them. But then he had the “1994 Democrat epiphany.” Just a week ago Fetterman told the NY Post that “the progressives left me.” Police defunding, open borders, Hamas…he didn’t betray them, they betrayed him.
I tried to make this point in 2022: Stroke victims aren’t retards; they’re just trapped in a state of speech and movement impairment. Perhaps I’m hypersensitive because, thanks to the hypertension I get from some of you folks, my stroke risk indicator reads “tomorrow at 3:27 p.m.” But two years ago I made it clear that “Fetterman is a retard” was a bad strategy.
And that’s another thing about the guy. He’s willing to take positions that ally him with folks who called him a retard, the people who, seeing him at his worst, mocked his affliction and ridiculed his recovery. His positions don’t seem influenced by personal grudges.
You cannot get more not-Trump than that. Trump has no positions beyond personal grudges.
Now let’s take a look at how some high-profile MAGAs are reacting to Fetterman embracing Blue-Dogism.
Like Poso the Clown, who tweeted:
Fetterman is running an angle on talking like average Pennsylvanians so that he can undercut Trump later this year when he campaigns with Biden across Pennsylvania This is clearly an op and there’s a lot of people falling for it
An “op.” It’s all an “op.”
Fetterman’s doing exactly what every politician should be doing—he’s representing the views of his constituents, and he’s becoming popular in his state in order to help his party. That’s how it’s supposed to go, Poso you cretin. Only those who’ve lost touch with reality see normalcy as an “op.” It’s like how a septum-pierced face-tatted nipple-ringed tranny would see Grace Kelly as ugly. When you’ve lost touch with reality, the normal seems abnormal; your perspective becomes inverted.
Only a moron so lost in conspiratorial thinking and so acclimated to a political party that only knows how to shoot itself in the foot, only knows how to ignore its voter base, and only campaigns on flights of fancy instead of brick-and-mortar issues could watch a politician doing the smart, correct, and effective thing and say, “It’s an op!”
Replying to Poso, MAGA mega-influencer “D.C. Draino” added:
Smart take by Poso Fetterman may be saying things we agree with recently, but he’s still a Democrat and will be supporting Joe Biden in the pivotal swing state of PA this fall Stay frosty Don’t boost his credibility
Poso: “Don’t fall for it!”
Draino: “Don’t boost his credibility!”
Enough with the fucking don’ts, you Rain Men. How about a do?
Do replicate his success. Do as he does.
But no. The MAGA influencers who insist on seeing everything as an “op” are marching rightists ever more rapidly off the sanity cliff.
Can you imagine if this Fetterman thing catches on? If more Dems start embracing reality as GOPs flee from it? All the rightists shouting “uniparty” will, ironically, be the ones who bring about one-party rule, as Republicans lose election after election.
Last week, after Amy Coney Barrett swung the vote against Texas regarding the border, high-profile MAGAs took to Twitter to declare that Barrett is “compromised” and an “op.” Tucker Carlson ranted that he no longer trusts her.
WTF? She’s exactly who she claimed to be. She’s a single-issue baby-waby-saving Papist. If it doesn’t involve abortion, she ain’t interested. You knew this! You can trust Barrett…she told you who she was, and you cheered. What the hell made you think she had any concern about slowing Third World immigration? Have you seen her fucking family? She adopts black and brown kids like Mia Farrow on speed.
Here’s Tucker back in 2020, alongside Candace “the Jews are our misfortune” Owens, applauding Barrett for being an anti-abortion zealot, a waby-firster. Tucker knew what he was getting, and now that he got it, his only choices are, admit his own stupidity and short-sightedness, or scream (in high-pitched Tucker voice) “FALSE FLAG! PSYOP! COMPROMISED!”
Ann Coulter called this at the time, and she called it perfectly. She warned about Barrett; she even suggested better candidates for Ginsburg’s seat. But nobody listened. Because the MAGA right has only two settings these days: “follow unthinkingly” and “scream conspiracy when you step in poo because you were following unthinkingly.”
I should add that Poso’s current obsession is that Taylor Swift is an “op.”
“Ye tried to warn us about the Taylor Swift psyop and we didn’t listen,” he tweeted last month.
Now, that’s a stark contrast. Poso credited a mentally ill Holocaust-denying Hitler fanboy for trying to warn us about an imaginary “psyop,” whereas Coulter tried to warn us about something genuine with real-world consequences. That so many of you will side with Poso on this, that so many of you will think he’s the real “truther,” scares the crap outta me.
Currently, the top “psyop” being sleuthed by tards like Poso, Carlson, and Trump’s anencephalic attic child Darren Beattie (Barrett often cites Beattie as proof that fetuses without brain stems can be viable) is the January 6 pipe bomb incident. Turns out it was an FBI (you guessed it) op!
The proof it was an op? The FBI hasn’t caught the culprit yet.
Beattie will happily walk you through hours of security camera footage from when the devices were discovered, pointing out that this pedestrian walks one way when he should’ve walked the other, and this guy…look at his face! He doesn’t sport the expression I’d wear while walking down a street, so he must be a fed!
These “sleuths” fail to provide any motive for the op; the amateurish “bombs” were placed at GOP and Dem HQs, neither went off, no one was hurt, and the incident didn’t affect the J6 narrative in a way that helped or harmed the left or the right, Pelosi or Trump.
Beattie and Carlson make a huge deal out of the fact that a small group of children was allowed to walk past the DNC HQ after investigators were alerted to the device.
“A-ha,” screams Carlson! “Aglughalughlewoo,” screams Beattie (the closest he can come to human speech, lacking a frontal lobe). “This is PROOF it’s an OP! If they didn’t already know the device was a FAKE, a PLANT, why’d they let children near it?”
Uh, if it had been an “op,” wouldn’t the feds have gone out of their way to make a huge deal about “protecting” those kids? Knowing there were cameras everywhere, wouldn’t they have acted as heroes? “Get back! RUN! Booooooomb!” The passivity of the investigators doesn’t seem to reflect the attitude of people who’d created a hoax to sow fear and panic.
Carlson and Beattie (the detective team of Holmes and Yoyo) point out that Kamala Harris wasn’t whisked to safety as a precaution when the devices were found.
That’s proof of an op.
Also, Nancy Pelosi made a big deal of running for her life when the J6ers stormed the Capitol.
That, too, is proof of an op.
If you react lackadaisically, that’s proof of an op—it means you know there’s no real danger. If you react dramatically, that’s proof of an op—it means you’re hamming it up to exploit the fake threat.
Rightist sleuths know the words “double” and “bind” when used separately (Nick Fuentes at In-N-Out: “Gimme a double-double.” Ali Alexander in line behind him: “And one for the BDSM teen boy I’m about to bind”), but don’t put those two words together; it’ll be lost on them.
Isn’t it possible that the FBI hasn’t caught the device-planter not because of an “op” but because of incompetence?
See, here’s why this “op” thing is damaging beyond just being stupid. So far, 2024’s been dominated by stories about the “competence crisis” that’s largely resulted from DEI policies. Diversity hires Third Worlding the nation. Highlighting the competency crisis is the best way to sell voters on supporting the dismantling of DEI (even many liberal voters don’t want to be on a plane when the door flies off).
If everything that happens is a delicately planned, meticulously carried-out op, then we don’t have a competency crisis. We have a steady hidden hand guiding all events. Sure the hidden overseers may be evil, but they’re certainly competent. Skilled, even.
By labeling everything an op, the right’s folding its best hand. Competency crisis is exactly the message that white working-class male voters—the ones most at risk of not being hired because of DEI—need to hear right now.
But no. As a Pennsylvania stroke victim displays actual competence, the reality-detached right dismisses competence as a talking point in favor of “we’re in the Matrix” fantasies of excessively competent hidden rulers faking our daily life.
Hey…what if Poso and Tuck are the real ops?
Given a choice, I’d rather drag the right back to reality. But that ain’t happening, so I might as well turn the paranoia against the paranoid.
Maybe the true “ops” are the guys screaming “op.” Maybe they’re the conspirators!
I’m just asking qwestchins…and maybe trying to lead you away from that poop you’re unthinkingly marching toward.
]]>During every show, my colleagues and I would face a simple question, usually from an audience member: “Why?”
“Why you doin’ this? Why are you questioning aspects of the mainstream Holocaust narrative?”
For me, the answer was as simple as it was unexciting: post–Cold War Holocaust history needed a cleanup. I had no agenda beyond that, which is why in 1994 I publicly separated from “revisionism,” as I saw that it had become as dogmatic as the ADL/Wiesenthal narrative.
But my colleagues needed a more exciting “why.” They wanted to claim they were saving the world. The standard line, repeated endlessly by the (often buffoonish) people I worked with at the time, was “WWIII will start because of Israel. If we can destroy Israel’s founding myth—the Holocaust!—we can end Israel and save mankind from nukyulur destruction.”
It was, of course, an idiotic notion. Whether one accepts the ADL’s sacred 6 million figure, Raul Hilberg’s 5 million, Gerald Reitlinger’s 4.1, or my 3.5, it was the postwar refugee problem that “created” Israel. Europe’s Jews had been served an eviction notice. Millions were murdered, but many millions more became refugees. That refugee problem would’ve driven the creation of Israel, regardless of how many Jews died in the camps.
When David Irving proclaimed in the 1990s that once he “torpedoes Battleship Auschwitz,” Israel will be gone within a year, I could only shake my head at the sheer lunacy of it.
At the time, the “revisionists” were frantically concerned about funding. The majority of their work was supported by elderly rich Germans pining for Hitler. But that was a finite resource. The old krauts were dying off quick, so in 1992, the “revisionists” got the idea to try for some of that Ay-rab money. After all, if you’re “ending Israel,” get them oil state sheeeeks and eee-murs to pony up!
But no matter how hard they tried, the “revisionists” never got a dime of Arab dough.
Why? Because for all their brutishness, the Arabs saw right through the lie that “torpedoing Auschwitz” could end Israel. To the white pseudo-intellectuals in “revisionist” circles, the notion that you can write a pamphlet and an empire falls—TOM PAINE!—was a beloved, romanticized notion. But the Arabs knew better. Only violence can “end Israel.” That’s how they saw it, and it was downright hilarious to see whites explaining the delicate intricacies of history to a tablecloth-headed thug who only knows “Kill! Burn! Destroy!”
It was like watching fruity academics try to civilize the Cavity Creeps.
“This byzantine statistical analysis is your key to victory!”
“NO! WE MAKE HOLES IN TEETH!”
That was then. Today, the “why” has shifted. Today, it’s not whites using denial to cozy up to Arabs, but the converse. When Syria’s Assad gave that Holocaust denial talk last month, who do you think that was for? His akbars? Please. That was him being Putin, trying to come off as “based” to his Western pals, his useful American idiots.
The 1990s line of “torpedo Auschwitz to save the Middle East” has been replaced with “torpedo Auschwitz to save the West.” These days, there’s a school of thought—echoed by every major Holocaust denier—that the modern woke West can be defeated if we can just drive a stake through the Holocaust.
I could offer two dozen recent examples of this line of thinking, but for brevity’s sake, here’s Keith Woods, a self-described “raging anti-Semite” and member of Nick Fuentes’ Naziboi circle who, last year, was retweeted and praised by Donald Trump Jr., Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Joe Rogan, and Jenna Ellis:
It is difficult to overstate how much everything since 1945 is shaped by the spectre of the Holocaust. The period since is the story of the religious underpinning of the West shifting from Christianity to a new foundation built on a single commandment: “never again.”
Woods and the Nazibois don’t blame Hitler and his grotesque excesses for killing the white nationalist brand—that wouldn’t be the “based” response (correct though it is); they blame Jews for making too big a deal about the Holocaust. And it’s easy to fall for the “Holocaust is the linchpin of all bad things” simple-minded talking point, because Jews have made it easy. Spending the past four decades getting Holocaust revisionism and denial criminalized in Europe and elsewhere is likely the single worst Jewish error since banning bacon. It plays right into the hands of those who think, “Ah-ha, this must be the Jews’ Achilles heel!” This, in turn, plays into Tucker Carlson’s favorite cliché: “If you’re catching flak, you must be over the target!”
Of course, that’s a nonsensical phrase. If I called your mother a whore, a stinking gutter street-whore who’s been hammered by so many black men they call her John Henry, you’d likely get angry.
So that must mean I’m correct! I’m taking flak, so obviously I’m over the target. Your mom is a whore.
Or…sometimes you take flak because you offend someone regarding something of great emotional import to them.
Look, I’m all in favor of drawing Muhammad, because nothing’s more important to me than free speech. But how foolish would I appear if I said “drawing Mohammed is the key to world peace”?
The Holocaust is an emotional topic for Jews, so they react emotionally. But more to the point, Holocaust remembrance is not responsible for the West’s woes. As I’ve written time and again, the white world—for better or worse—faced a bill come due in the latter half of the 20th century. African and Asian colonialism was never going to be forever, and U.S. blacks were never going to stay in subservience forever. You can blame Jews and the Holocaust all you like, but it’s not Auschwitz that made blacks dislike Jim Crow. It’s not Auschwitz that birthed feminism. And guess what—gays were promiscuous long before Auschwitz, and indeed, there’d even been periods in world history when they’d been out of the closet…long before Auschwitz.
Auschwitz didn’t make the Congolese hate the Belgians, and Gandhi was agitating for independence—thanks to his British-provided education—before Auschwitz was even a camp.
So here’s my biggest fear—and most dire prediction—for 2024: Holocaust denial is going to make increasing inroads into the right. Because we live in a time when work-shy grifting rightists cannot resist dead-end shortcuts (pseudo-solutions that accomplish nothing beyond eliminating the need for actual hard work). The right has no Soros (someone willing to spend billions on tedious but hugely effective ground-level foundation-laying). Rightist millionaires make movies to “change the culture”—that’s the shortcut we need! Rightist activists sleuth—expose Baron Rothschild XXI! That’s the shortcut we need!
Elect Trump—he’ll END THE DEEP STATE! How? Dammit, never question the shortcut.
And if that doesn’t work, just move to a RAYED STAYUT! Now, that’s a shortcut! Just relocate to a place like South Dakota where the GOP governor’s totally not in the pocket of Big Tranny (just like Mike DeWine totally isn’t), or move to the Deep South because Memphis, Atlanta, and Jackson are imaginary places that will never shift the balance of power via demographics.
The right is currently dangerously prone to the shortcut of “deny the Holohoax and everything bad will end.” 2023’s rightist flirtation with denial will likely explode in 2024. Remember, I’ve walked among deniers for 35 years; I know this topic better than you.
MAGA/QAnon conspiratorial thinking, the embrace of denial by mentally unwell celebrities, the rise of “be based as possible” as a response to Con Inc., the pile-on against a weakened ADL (which I covered last week), the Gaza war, the growing alliance between anti-Israel conspiracy-sleuth leftists (Michael Tracey, Glenn Greenwald) and their rightist counterparts like Carlson, a sense that anything that annoys the “Deep State” is good and deserving of amplification regardless of veracity, polls showing denial’s popularity among blacks (which rightists will take not as proof of black ignorance but as the key to finally “winning the black vote”), and (perhaps most important) Elon Musk not just allowing but rewarding Holocaust denial on Twitter—all these elements have created a deadly cocktail, an irresistible hemlock to make denial the right’s drink of choice.
Tucker wading into WWII revisionism and Jewish “duel loyalty” accusations, other prominent rightists championing Norman Finkelstein’s semi-denial, these are gateway drugs. To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with WWII revisionism or Finkelstein’s criticisms of “the Holocaust industry” (though as a historian he’s lacking). But I’ve been in this game long enough to know when someone’s tiptoeing around the peripheral stuff with an eye toward the hard stuff. I can spot it a mile away.
Not that it’s hard to spot. Last week when it was announced that Musk would visit Auschwitz, high-profile “gateway rightists” (those with one foot in Fuentes Naziland and the other in Tucker Carlsonville) like Stew Peters tweeted Holocaust denial at Musk (Peters even invoked me, because he’s one of the retards I mentioned a few weeks ago who thinks it’s still 1992).
The more utilitarian an idea becomes, the more staying power it has. Holocaust denial is already useful to the Groyper morons as “proof of basedness,” and it’s already useful to the cretins who think it’s the “off switch” to “Jewish power.” But also, and I’ve been seeing this a lot recently, it’s being increasingly employed by anti-vaxxers, J6ers, and MAGA election deniers, who’ll show some half-assed denial meme and follow it with “if they lied to you about this, what else have they lied to you about?”
Hence the increasing utilitarianism of denial. It’s something rightists will draw people to (“follow the rabbit hole and arrive here: the silver bullet to end the Jews”), and something used to draw people to other things (“if ‘they’ faked the Holocaust, of course they faked J6 and the 2020 election”). And all of those destinations serve only to detach rightists from the issues that matter to voters.
The belief that killing “the spectre of the Holocaust” will save the West is as imbecilic as Irving’s belief that doing so would “end Israel” by 1994. But many of you will gravitate toward this line of thinking anyway. And yeah, you’ll get flak, which will strengthen your belief that you’re “onto something.”
But while you’ll certainly be hurting Jews on an emotional level, you’ll be hurting yourselves worse. “Close borders, deport illegals, imprison criminals” will be lost in a sea of “wooden doors” Holocaust memes.
I can see it in my crystal ball (and my woodpecker) clear as day.
It’s coming in 2024.
Unless we can nip it in the bud.
Let’s see if we can.
]]>As I pointed out last year, the GOP goes into 2024 with several strikes against it, at a time when, under different circumstances, the election would be a cinch considering the massive unpopularity of the current president. Abortion is one strike; pure poison at the ballot box. Then there’s 2020 election denial and the menagerie of barnyard beasts who champion it. Then there’s J6 obsession, and, of course, Trump himself, as divisive a figure as American politics has ever seen.
So you know what the right doesn’t need? One more strike.
Cue rightists saying, “Let’s get ourselves one more strike!”
2023 witnessed a stunning reversal of fortune for Big Bad Jew, Inc.
After decades of being the bully on the block, the ADL got its ass handed to it by a duck-billed albino billionaire. This was 100 percent the ADL’s fault; they screwed the pooch one too many times. In 2023 the ADL went from thumping David Duke to humping Marmaduke. Had the ADL stuck to its supposed mandate—fighting “Nazis” and Holocaust deniers—the org would’ve been fine. But no; it had to “get with the times” and expand its list of hate criminals to include those who are skeptical of the notion that children are born with their “gender soul” in the wrong body and require surgical and chemical alteration to align their chakras (there’s a clinical term for skeptics of this belief system: “sane”).
Adding trans-skeptics to the list of “those who must be destroyed” was one schtup too far for the ADL. Boomer conservatives—not the Fuentes/Groyper kind, but the ones who believe the Holocaust happened—rebelled. And once Musk made it allowable to mercilessly pelt the ADL, pelting from all corners commenced.
Needless to say, the ADL whined and played the victim. Because, well, they’re Jews. To be fair, the ADL is correct that Twitter has become a cesspool of anti-Jewish hatred, which is why Musk abandoned his “I’ll sue the ADL” pledge. He likely had his people crunch the numbers regarding the growth of Holocaust denial and “kill the kikes” accounts over the past year, and he realized that this time, he’d be the “pedo cavediver” in the lawsuit, because the ADL can easily defend its claim.
No sooner had Musk given the okay to pummel the ADL, along came the Hamas/Israel conflict, and U.S. leftists—celebrities, academics, students, “influencers”—unleashed hell on everything Jewish. All of a sudden, American Jews realized that they were surrounded by people who had zero sympathy for the mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of Jews. Supposed allies were saying, “Serves you right, Hymie.”
It’s like posting on social media about your recent breakup and not getting a single “I’m so sorry you’re going through this” sympathy comment, but only “Good, I hope you suffer, bitch.”
The backlash forced the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt to make a stunning admission: The problem isn’t left/right but young/old.
No shit, Shylock. ADL leaders had become so obsessed with attacking everything “right-wing,” they lost sight of the fact that older mainstream conservatives are reliable allies and supporters of Jews in general and Israel in particular. So when the ADL began classifying conservatives who want border control, and anyone who opposes tranny ideology, as “hate criminals,” when it expanded its mandate from “fight Jew-haters” to “fight anyone who believes in two genders and a closed border,” it alienated an entire base of support, all in the name of catering to Zoomers and POCs, who comically proceeded to shit on Jews the moment Israel had an hour of need.
I hope going after Libs of TikTok’s Chaya Raichik like she’s Mengele was worth it, ADL. You could’a had a lot more support, but you rejected it because of things (open borders, men in dresses) that weren’t even issues when your org was in its prime.
You made your bed, Greenblatt, and their ain’t no hole in that sheet. Only Zoomer bedbugs eating you alive.
In Hollywood, Jews—the town’s essential element—found themselves isolated. And from the moment director Shmuelly Glukenschlitz rolled camera on Tinseltown’s first silent film (1902’s “Wily Chicken Baffles a Negro”), Jews have never felt isolated here. Even gays, who, like Jews, have always been part of the industry, have at times felt isolated. But not Jews. Not here, in their own shtetl. 2023 changed that. As I’ve previously noted, post–George Floyd, Hollywood Jews found themselves getting fired, or not being hired in the first place, as a result of the “people of color” quotas enacted by the streaming services. And now, Hollywood Jews have seen their own agents, managers, and costars attack them over Israel. They’ve seen A-listers they helped launch turn around and tell them, “You deserved those rapes and murders.”
Get the irony? Jews in the town they created are now being attacked for being white (“those jobs are for POCs only!”) and Jewish (“you Israelis deserve a butchering”). An irony worthy of Hollywood Jew extraordinaire Rod Serling: “Submitted for your approval: a people who champion the rights of bisexuals tried to have it both ways, only to discover that it only doubled their chance of being snubbed on prom night.”
All in all, 2023 was a bad year for Jews. And this newfound sense of “freedom” to kick Jew ass, this transition from decades of “I’m skeered to attack Jews” to “Hey—now I can say whatever I want about ’em!” invites the kind of overcorrection that’s exactly the fifth strike the right doesn’t need. Jew hatred polls poorly. Indeed, in the “warm feelings” index, Jews are the most “warmly received” religious group in the U.S., even edging out Protestants.
But ignoring polls is a rightist hobby, and increasingly rightists are convincing themselves that going after “the Jews”—now that they can—is the panacea they’ve been seeking. Ever since Elon Musk’s “the Jews are our misfortune” retweet, it’s become the new hip, edgy thing to do (now that it’s safe…fucking cowards) to claim that Jews are behind every racial problem in America, from black misbehavior to DEI to immigration.
A new freedom to slam Jews coupled with the thing that’s heroin to today’s MAGA/Carlson rightists—simple-minded answers to complex questions—may very well spell disaster in 2024.
Look, I’m Dave Cole, okay? For 35 years I’ve gone up against left-wing Jews and the Jewish “establishment.” The AJC once called me the worst traitor in the history of Jews. I was compared to Hitler, Arafat, and Hussein (you think Chaya Raichik has it bad? Oy!).
But the ridiculous defamation aside, I’ve always counseled retaining perspective and a sense of history. Yes, Jews are overwhelmingly left-leaning in their politics regarding racial matters. Also yes, non-Jewish whites are cursed with sentimentality regarding racial matters, and this cloying mawkishness existed before Jews and would exist today without Jews.
Sentimentality toward oppressed darkies has always been as much a part of WASPishness as flat asses. Are we now so obsessed with “git that Jew; he’s the one wot dun mesmerized us” that we’ve decided to forget centuries of white Christians doing missionary work to convert and “civilize” the ungabungas? Are we supposed to pretend something that was so fucking widespread that in the 1800s the cartoon image of an Anglo in a cannibal pot was immediately understood even by children as shorthand for “the missionary failed” never happened?
When the British couched their African colonialism in humanitarian terms—“We’re endin’ the bleedin’ slave trade and building bloomin’ roads an’ bridges an educatin’ the bloody savages”—who was that propaganda for? What was the audience for it? The ungabungas? Oh sure, every 1870 spearchucker read the Sunday Times.
No, it was for the sentimental Anglo—white—British public back home, and the liberal Anglo politicians who opposed colonialism even in Queen Victoria’s day.
There’s this nutty notion among today’s alt-right morons that before the 1960s all whites were “based” (who’d have thought that the ascendancy of Holocaust denial would bring a host of other bad historical takes?). In fact, even Mussolini—mutherfuckin’ MUSSOLINI—hired a beloved artist to create propaganda postcards to reassure Italians that the purpose of the war in Ethiopia was to save blacks and foster love and brotherhood between dago and bunga. Because Mussolini understood the sentimentality of his people.
Jews did not create white sentimentality and savior syndrome toward the Gunga Dims; Christianity did. That’s why when you go down the white racialist rabbit hole, you always end up at the inevitable endpoint that the ultimate Jewish conspiracy is Christianity. That’s where it leads, because at least neo-Nazis are willing to acknowledge that whites were trying to “save” bungas long before Jews got hold of major Western institutions, so they back-trace the start of the conspiracy not to the Eastern European revolutionaries who flooded Western Europe and America in the early 1900s, but rather to Christ himself, the ultimate Jewish conspirator.
A lunatic claim, sure, yet more logical than the claims of rightists who playact that without Jews, all whites would be remorseless BASED Aryan supersoldiers.
Even at the height of American and European empire, whites were always of two minds, a hydra, one head spitting fire, the other belching hearts and flowers: conquer the wogs ’n’ nogs, but also, convert, heal, educate, and minister to them.
That’s just a fact. Jews may have fed the hearts-and-flowers head, but they didn’t birth it.
“Smashing the Jews” won’t kill white sentimentality. It will, however, kill the right’s electoral chances in 2024, because it’s that very sentimentality that will prompt right-leaning whites-of-conscience to further abandon the GOP thanks to the ravings of the “Jews are our misfortune” activists and influencers.
Yes, thanks to Musk, you can now fuck with the Jews.
Yes, I get how appealing it is, what a release it is, due to the arrogance displayed by Jewish orgs during their decades of immunity.
Still, that doesn’t mean it’s the right path.
A satisfying path? Perhaps. But ultimately self-defeating.
Sadly, the right, specifically the anti-establishment, anti–Con Inc. right (this includes the MAGAs), is mesmerized by the notion of incantation over shoe-leather. Catchphrases! Memes! Send Moloch back to hell by reciting the magic words and everything bad will miraculously vanish! Forget doing the hard work of crafting a message that appeals to blue-collar whites (a category that includes race-sentimental Christians).
The nation needs the anti-establishment right to push for the things that matter—closed borders, deportations, POC incarceration. But, at the same time, the nation needs those anti-establishment rightists to stay sane.
And that ain’t gonna happen. Not with Musk’s license to overcorrect on the Jews. That’s gonna bring out the worst in the people fighting Con Inc.
All I can do is counsel against such overcorrection.
I’ll fail, to be sure. But at least I tried.
]]>So now I present 2024’s word of the year: overcorrection.
In short, overcorrection is when something requires remedy, but the remedy goes too far and becomes a problem itself.
Lemme give you a few examples, starting with pop culture. Up through the 1960s, female characters in action films and TV shows typically had to be saved by men. These women spent a good deal of time cowering and screaming.
The Avengers, and yes this is my second Avengers reference in as many months, was an unremarkable British TV show that had zero appeal across the Atlantic. But in 1965, Diana Rigg was brought on as the new female lead, and Rigg’s character—Emma Peel—took the world by storm. Peel was the seminal ass-kicking femme, and the way Rigg played her—strong but sexy, coquettish at times, brutal at others—struck a chord. The series blew up in America, because Peel was, to a large extent, something new. A correction to the cliché of the cowering woman (it should be noted that series stunt coordinator Ray Austin took great pains to construct a realistic fighting style for 5-foot-10 Rigg; he integrated actual martial arts techniques—there was never a scene like we’d get today where a five-foot-tall waif air-kicks a 280-pound henchman through a wall. The Avengers recognized physics).
After two highly successful seasons, Rigg, justifiably, asked ITV to be paid the equal of costar Patrick Macnee. The network and the producers refused, and she quit. The series imploded and folded.
Okay, at that time, it would’ve been 100 percent justified to ask, “Why don’t we have more female action heroes?” Emma Peel had shown it to be profitable, and genre fans had grown tired of the old clichés. So sure, at that time, demanding more women in action films was appropriate.
And here we are in the 2020s, and what do we see?
Yep, overcorrection. Now every woman in every action film is superhuman. Stronger than the guys, smarter than the guys, always the rescuer, never the rescued. It’s as tedious as it is predictable.
And along with overcorrection comes the parade of morons who can’t or won’t see the overcorrection. You’ll still find imbeciles claiming that there’s not enough “female representation” in action films, when in fact, these days, that’s all there is.
Last week, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, director of the upcoming “Jedi” Star Wars film, told the press, “We’re in 2024 now, and it’s about time we had a woman come forward to shape a story in a galaxy far, far away.”
“About time”? A woman’s been running (into the ground) the entire franchise for years.
One of the first signs of mental illness is the inability to mark the passing of time. Schizophrenics often “lose hours”; a day can go by, and they don’t realize it. But schizophrenia’s a legit disease; the low-IQ who walk among us have brains afflicted by stupidity. Hence why you still have leftists saying, “We need more female-driven action movies!” It’s no different from those who think blacks are still being lynched in the streets, or that black concerns are ignored by the media.
Zero awareness that the U.S. went from one extreme 100 years ago (blacks don’t matter), to an overcorrection (blacks are the only ones who matter).
Overcorrection thrives because the dumbest among us don’t comprehend that at a certain point you have to put the brakes on the remedy because the remedy has become as deadly as the illness (yes, overcorrections are often driven by bad actors, but to flourish they rely on the simpletons who don’t notice the shift).
Moving on from Emma Peel to the Holocaust (that’s the first time in human history those eight words appeared in that order), Holocaust deniers attack me because I’m constantly opposing them. “Why you always pickin’ on us? Why not go after the ADL?”
Well, 1992 David Cole did “pick on” the ADL. 21st-century Cole goes after deniers. And deniers, the dumbest people on earth (and I say that knowing that there are New Guinea aboriginals who’ve yet to comprehend the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth), want it to still be 1992. Indeed, they believe it is still 1992, when Cole was on national TV railing against misleading exhibits at Holocaust museums and camp sites.
When deniers ask why I say different things now than I did in 1992, my response is along the lines of, “If you expect me to say the same things in 2024 that I said in 1992, that means I’ve gone 32 years without learning anything new, which is arguably the worst insult imaginable, because only the most closed-minded numbskull on earth could go that long without taking in new knowledge.”
But of course deniers don’t understand that response, because—possessing a unique combination of low IQ and, in many cases, mild-to-severe schizophrenia—the passage of time is unobserved. To them, it’s still 1992, and what I “handed down from the mount” in those days is as relevant now as it was then, because then is now. Hence any evolution of my message must be the result of me “selling out” or folding to JDL threats, because knowledge never evolves, just as time never passes. Even though the JDL died with its leaders in 2002, to a denier, it still is 2002.
1992, 2002, and 2024 exist on the same plane at the same time; deniers are Dr. Manhattan, but retarded.
I get a dozen deniers a day on Twitter coming at me like I’m some kind of timeless guru, only to react with fury when I explain that it’s not 1992 anymore. A dozen a day. Not a week, but a day, now that Musk’s made Holocaust denial promotable and profitable.
Which brings us back to overcorrection. In 1992, the ADL was a fearsome beast with no natural predators in the U.S. Holocaust museums and camp sites worldwide spread disinformation knowing that those who objected could do little but print up a clumsy newsletter and snail-mail it to friends. The balance of power, at that moment, favored the ADL and the mainstream historians. I battled them because the field of battle was uneven; they were the bullies and, with the arrogance of bullies facing weak and voiceless opposition, they were spreading poor history. So that’s where I concentrated my efforts.
But 1992 is long over, and the public square is no longer dominated by lantern-jawed gorgon Debbie Lipstadt and iron-fisted Irv Rubin. All the fraudulent camp exhibits my 22-year-old lispy self showed on the Donahue show and 60 Minutes (“The doorths open in!” “Wooden doorths!” “It lockth from the inthide!”) have been corrected, and Holocaust history is stronger as a result (which was my goal all along; you’re welcome). The fraudulent Soviet-concocted death toll at Auschwitz has been jettisoned, and, thanks to David Irving’s “questionable” defamation suit against Lipstadt in the late 1990s, mainstream Holocaust scholars took their heads outta their asses and actually decided to address the claims of revisionists and deniers.
And now we come to the overcorrection.
In 2009, Holocaust denial suffered a blow when revisionist “think tank” Institute for Historical Review distanced itself from the topic, with IHR director Mark Weber essentially saying, “Yeah, there was a Holocaust; we ain’t going to the mat over that anymore.” But the blow wasn’t fatal, because social media was on the rise. Soon enough, the crazies (who’d been kept down by the “serious revisionists” and the absence of social media) didn’t need a “think tank” anymore. And today, the deniers, especially the new generation—the Groypers, the edgy edgelord MMA fighters, podcasters, and “based” celebrities and influencers—have become the new bullies, the smug, hardheaded adherents of an inflexible orthodoxy.
In 1992, revisionists/deniers defined themselves as the “open-minded” ones. “Hey, we’re just asking questions, gosh darn it!” But today, it’s way easier to speak rationally with someone from a mainstream Holocaust org than it is to speak with a denier. Deniers have become the very monster that rational revisionism initially fought—they’re closed-minded, obstinate, dismissive of facts, and they react with anger and name-calling if their orthodoxy is challenged.
And horrifically, they’re on the ascent. The embrace of Holocaust denial by large-follower Twitter and TikTok accounts (since Musk ended the ban on denial, some of the largest accounts on Twitter are denial accounts), coupled with the weakening of the ADL (a weakening the ADL brought on itself, to be sure; I’ve no sympathy at all for that org), means that the power dynamic has shifted. As someone who can mark the passing of time, I see the overcorrection. Thirty years ago, deniers were being silenced and imprisoned. Now they have the floor and their old foes are on the defensive.
Another thing about overcorrections is that the cowards, those too timid to speak up when they were the bullied, all of a sudden find “courage” when the former bullies are being stomped by the mob. People are piling on the ADL because Musk made it safe to do so. But I took on the ADL when it was at its most powerful, because when it comes to comedy I love “punching down,” but in an actual fight only weaklings join in when there’s no risk.
I don’t weep for the ADL, but there’s a new main menace in town. Holocaust denial’s become “cool,” promoted by zealots who are the new worst and widest spreaders of bad history, and defended by dolts who, too stupid to gauge the passing of time, still see deniers as underdogs.
But they’re not. They (to quote George Will) “torture history to rehabilitate torturers” to an audience of millions every day. They’re the “regime” now. That’s how history works. Romania’s anti-communist, then communist, then anti-communist again. If you can’t keep up with the shifts, if you can’t see changes occurring around you, you might want to ask your doctor about chlorpromazine.
Pendulums swing; it’s literally the only thing they do. And pendulums are inevitable in human action because the vocal are often the most stupid, and the stupid can only see extremes.
“No women action heroes!”
“Only women action heroes!”
“No blacks allowed!”
“Only blacks allowed!”
“Six million killed and if you say it’s even one less you’re a Nazi!”
“270,000 dead from typhus and if you say it’s even one more you’re a SHILL CUCK!”
The pendulum never stops swinging because inflexible orthodoxies inspire only compliance or defiance, but never equilibrium or edification.
The brave soul confronts the inflexible orthodoxy in its ascent, not its descent.
Okay, this was Part I of my overcorrection rant. Next week: how overcorrection applies to the 2024 elections, and why that’s very bad news.
]]>Santos and Sinners
A prediction: George Santos will become the J6 of 2024. Rightists will once again allow themselves to be maneuvered into not just defending the indefensible, but making the indefensible an essential element of MAGA membership.
As I argued to no avail in 2021, the only proper response to the cop-beating thugs of J6 was “Let ’em go to prison, and let’s move on.” Instead, the importance of J6 has increased to rightists each year since.
Because at heart all political partisans—left or right—seek to “save the oppressed.”
But whereas lefties have plenty of “oppressed” to save—black murderers, illegal beans, Gazan terrorists—before Trump, white conservatives were hobbled by a lack of dindus to defend. J6 gave them a thousand Daquans to (politically) die for.
In theory rightists should be championing hard-working blue-collar whites who don’t run afoul of the law. But how do you defend those who don’t get in trouble? It’s why leftists ignore blacks who don’t commit crimes. Every savior needs a sinner. A misunderstood sinner. Someone to rescue. It’s not by chance that women are often attracted to reprobates.
J6 rehabilitation is MAGA at its most feminine. “Oh that poor thuggish cop-beater; I’ll save him!”
George Santos will be the right’s next cause célèbre. He’ll keep bitching about how the “Deep State” (“the man”) unfairly took him down, and you’ll buy it. Instead of doing the smart thing and saying, “This clown should be lost to history,” you’ll make him an even bigger deal in 2024 than he was the past two years.
Santos’ rehabilitation is already happening, and it’ll explode in 2024. Because MAGA has its own version of “big tent”: Anyone in politics or entertainment “taken down” (ruined, canceled, prosecuted) must be victims of the Deep State, because if the Deep State is all-powerful, and if it protects its own, then by logical extension the “ruined” must’ve been foes of the Deep State or else they wouldn’t have been taken down. Thus, all the ruined are welcomed by MAGA.
That goes for Kevin Spacey, a die-hard groomer leftist until he saw MAGA’s weakness for the fallen. Now he’s Tucker’s bestie.
Jonathan Majors’ smartest move at this point would be to call Shapiro/Boreing for work. I’m not going so far as to predict that’ll happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Dubba Standard
That said, I can hear some of you parroting the official pro-Santos talking point: “Lots of folks in Congress are corrupt! Why’d they pick on Santos? He must be dangerous to ‘them’!”
Let me try to explain in a manner you might understand.
Bill Whitemann embezzles from his company. He carries out the crime with painstaking intricacy, siphoning money in small amounts, with plausible deniability to cover his tracks and ready excuses to build a legal defense should he be caught.
DeKwantico Jackshun storms a bank. He shoots the security guard, pistol-whips the teller, then shoots her in the head because she won’t stop crying. He reaches for the first tray of money he sees, all small bills (he hadn’t bothered to find out where the big bills are). He also forgot a sack, so he dashes out of the bank with $380 in fives and tens under his arm. But his “getaway car” won’t start, and he’s quickly apprehended.
Two thieves. One did it well, one did it poorly. DeKwantico’s botched robbery will make the news. If Bill Whitemann’s crime is exposed, likely no one will care, because it wasn’t sensational.
Yes, Virginia, it does matter how you do something (cue Jimmie Lunceford). And when you do something poorly, you will be held to a harsher standard and you will deserve it for your incompetence.
Santos was so bad at his grift that he became a liability, and he got what he deserved. Sure, they’re all corrupt. And exactly for that reason, the ones so inept at it that they attract undue attention must be expelled. Santos was a millstone, not a martyr.
Incompe-tent-dwellers
Palestinians are the George Santos of Arabs. Last month when a Jacobin writer asked why the Palestinians can’t try to get their “liberation” via nonviolent means, she was swarmed by hostile commenters screeching that “violence is the only path for the oppressed!”
To revisit a point I’ve made in the past, when Umbawungas in Apartheid-era South Africa would attempt terrorism against whites, they’d be violently crushed. So the Bungas actually learned nuance—which is like a cat learning Scrabble (you’d think it impossible but damned if you’re not impressed by the sight), and they took down Apartheid “peacefully.” It would’ve seemed unthinkable in 1950, but by 1990 it was a reality.
To be clear, Apartheid was not abolished bloodlessly; the ANC would literally burn its own children alive to keep them from collaborating with whites. But that’s the point; the violence was used strategically, Bunga-on-Bunga (which nobody on earth cares about), until power was won. Then they started killing whites. SA blacks pretended to be Gandhi for the win. Then they became Gein.
As I’ve said before, when Africans prove more capable than you, you are a failure. Blacks realized that killing white children in 1984 would’ve killed their cause, so they played the victim, taking the blows and crying “have you ever seen such cruelty,” until Apartheid SA fell. Palis, who are no more “oppressed” than were Apartheid-era Bungas, just can’t stop killing.
Again, it’s the way that you do things.
Palestinians are best represented by Ali Hassan Abu-Kamal, the 69-year-old Palestinian “teacher” who, in 1997, committed a mass shooting at the Empire State Building observation deck to protest Israel. He murdered a random Danish tourist who was just enjoying the sights during his trip to America.
Mindless, self-defeating violence.
Palis have hundreds of Western rock stars, academics, and actors on their side. Black South Africans knew how to use those resources. Palis are clueless; they know only “kill! kill!”
Like Santos, they’re getting exactly what their incompetence merits.
Groom for Improvement
MAGA superstars “Poso” and “Cerno” are on the front lines of guarding against grooming.
Because to them, everyone’s a groomer.
Except actual groomers.
In July, Paul “Pee-wee Herman” Reubens passed away. Reubens was a well-liked guy in this town, but also, he was a guy who’d been brought up on kiddie porn possession charges in the early 2000s. His private stash of “erotica” was targeted by investigators as an extension of the investigation into convicted pedo actor Jeffrey Jones (the principal from Ferris Bueller…and now you know why Ferris was so reluctant to go to school).
Reubens ended up pleading guilty to misdemeanor obscenity charges. His defense was that he liked naked pics of teen boys, but only 18+.
Poso the Clown accuses everyone he dislikes of being a “groomer.” But after Reubens died, he tweeted “Paul Reubens never hurt anyone but Hollywood destroyed him over a personal failing while they were doing far worse Pay attention to who the media protects and who they destroy RIP Legend.”
Cerno the Clownier also accuses everyone he dislikes of being a groomer, but after GOP perv Madison Cawthorn lost his seat following the release of videos in which he dragged his genitals across young men’s faces, Cerno tweeted “Straight men in hypermasculine environments do shit that looks gay. It’s common. Madison Cawthorn is a bro. That’s the only scandal here,” adding that Cawthorn was “driven out of Congress – for whistle blowing” the Deep State.
Well, Cawthorn blew something, but t’weren’t no whistle.
And now Tucker pals around with Spacey, with Ian Miles Cheong declaring that Spacey can’t be a groomer because he has no courtroom convictions.
But Reubens, who does, also isn’t a groomer.
Doesn’t the arbitrariness disturb you? These “groomer hunters” say everyone’s a groomer…except the guy with the obscenity conviction or the guy who teabagged young men or the actor with dozens of man/boy groping accusations.
Again, it’s the arbitrariness that troubles me. In 2024, as these MAGA influencers try to drive the primaries, never forget that they’re just making stuff up as they go along. Anyone can be a groomer or not. Just like god-king Trump, who can call someone a MAGA hero on Tuesday and a Deep State villain on Wednesday. It’s the capriciousness of those who know that their followers never ask questions (“qwestchins,” sure, like the Ron Unz variety, but not actual questions).
A Cole Christmas Carol
I wanna tell you about my Christmas Eve.
It was midnight and I was in my nightcap and dressing gown, when echoing through my house came a wailing, a groaning, a sound like a Yale man who’d eaten bad clams at his yacht club.
A ghostly figure materialized in my bedroom…
It was William F. Buckley.
“Mr. Buckley,” said I, “why do you visit me this eve?”
Holding a pen to his cheek, the figure replied, “I’ve sojourned to this tellurian plane to examine the state of young conservatism in the present day.”
“But why ask me?” I inquired.
“Ann Coulter recommended you.”
Perplexed, I pursued the question. “But if you visited Ann, why appear before me? She can assist you most ably.”
“Because,” the specter replied, “Ann has a life; she’s busy with friends and family tonight. But she knew you’d be free.”
“Damn,” I thought to myself, “I just got dunked by ghost Buckley.”
Momentarily distracted, Buckley blurted, “Are you literally eating gruel?”
“Yep,” I replied. “Kroger-brand gruel. $1.99 per serving. I have it delivered in bulk and then claim it was expired to get a refund from the automated return system.”
“I find you most vexing, sir,” Buckley continued. “Let us proceed to the matter at hand. What’s the prevailing contemporaneous state of youthful conservatism?”
“This is an iPhone,” I explained. “It came out right before you died. It’s like a Dick Tracy watch but people masturbate to it.” Pulling up Gab, I scrolled the profiles of top young rightists. Buckley studied the screen, beholding Zoomer brilliance: “BIRBS GROYP DOGE MAGA KEK CUCK STONKS WOODEN DOORS WHERE MY FRENS?”
Wrinkling his brow, Buckley stated, “While I’m thunderstruck by these colloquialisms, I assume such tidings are uttered in the service of core conservative principles.”
To which I replied, “Nope. Just to rehabilitate Hitler.”
Then I paused for effect…
“And here’s Tucker Carlson calling you one of the greatest villains of the 20th century.”
One final pause, this time for cruelty…
“Revilo Oliver won, douchebag.”
And with that Buckley reached for my Glock and put it to his head, but I reminded him that he’s already dead. And he vaporized into the ether with an agonized moan, this time definitely not from clams.
I woke up on Christmas Day neither reformed nor joyous from my apparitional experience. Just very pessimistic about 2024.
Happy New Year.
]]>So this column, and the next, will be capsules!
We all like capsules, right?
Right?
Here are a few items that didn’t merit a full column this year but are still worthy of mention.
Wait, Are We “Nazi Realists” or “Nazi Hystericals”?
A few months ago on Twitter I attracted the ire of the Fuentes Nazibois by pointing out what to me seemed like a rather glaring hypocrisy: Far-rightists are always going on about how not all Nazis were bad and it’s immoral to prosecute 98-year-olds who may have had some tangential association with the Holocaust.
“Just because somebody served on the Eastern Front against the Soviets doesn’t mean they were Jew-killers.”
And then in September Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament applauded a 98-year-old Ukrainian who fought alongside Germans against the Soviets on the Eastern Front, and all of a sudden, the prosecution and imprisonment of elderly “tangential Nazis” became the coolest thing ever to rightists.
“Git that decrepit ol’ bastard! Though accused of no war crimes, he might’ve peripherally been a part of ’em!”
These are the same bozos who DM me, “Dave, isn’t it a travesty that the 97-year-old concentration camp secretary is still being hounded by the courts?”
Look, I understand. You hate Ukraine and you love Putin because shirtless riding a bear or something. But I never cease to be amazed at the lack of coherence. Maybe that’s why a guy like me has a dedicated reader base—continuity of thought. Yes, I think it’s wrong to imprison a 97-year-old Nazi camp stenographer, and yes, I also think the situation with the 98-year-old Ukrainian lauded in Parliament is nuanced and I’m not in favor of tormenting an old man just to dunk on Trudeau—a vile human, but if he’s still in office despite all the domestic evil he’s done, I’m not sure destroying an elderly man’s last years on earth was worth giving Trudeau the minor dunking he easily weathered.
Plus, I see the hypocrisy more up-close than you. I have tards who write to me, “Hey Dave, how cum everybody talks about the Holocaust but nobody talks about the Holodomor?” and then these same idiots, when presented with an opportunity to talk about the Holodomor in order to explain the motivations of the 98-year-old Ukrainian guy, become Simon Wiesenthal: “ARREST HIM! WOIST OUTRAGE EVAH! NEVAH FORGET DAH HOLOCAUST!”
Dumbasses.
Foot Fetish
And speaking of Hitlers large and small, in August, Foot Locker announced that it wouldn’t be selling the “Yeezy” sneakers (the Kanye line) that Adidas was unloading on the market after severing ties with everyone’s favorite Hitler-suitor (in sociological terms, the love affair between a Nazi and a black man is referred to as “Mann-Boy Love”). Foot Locker’s decision led rightist website ZeroHedge to declare, “Instead of selling Yeezy shoes and sending sales surging, Foot Locker prefered [sic] to remain woke and watch its stock crater 35% in one day. Smart.”
ZeroHedge followers echoed the point:
“Foot locker went woke, and now their [sic] broke.”
@BadMomma0511
Wait, “woke”?
Okay, I’m confused here. Aren’t rightists the ones who claim that Hitler and the Nazis were “left-wing socialists”?
So how is refusing to sell sneakers created by a guy who said “I love Hitler” woke?
I’ll phrase it this way: If Foot Locker refused to sell shoes created by someone who proclaimed devotion to Che Guevara, would you call that a “woke” decision?
I’m pretty sure you’d call it “based.”
So if you really believe that Hitler was a leftist socialist, how is refusing to sell Hitler-sneakers “woke”?
I know, I know. Just like the “stop persecuting Nazi 98-year-olds/commence persecuting Nazi 98-year-olds” story, it’s not supposed to make sense.
But at least a few people in the ZeroHedge Twitter thread noticed the lack of coherence.
“Not selling shoes from a vocal antisemite is now ‘woke’??? Okay, sure!”
@StanphylCap
To which a ZeroHedge supporter replied:
“Not selling shoes at all for any political reason is what’s important.”
@Xerostomia1
Great; we’ve redefined “woke.” It now means “not selling something for any political reason.”
A roadside mom-and-pop store in Roberts County, Texas, the reddest point in the state.
A man with California plates pulls up and enters.
Man: “Hey, you guys sell any ‘Biden rocks, Trump sucks cocks’ T-shirts?”
Clerk: “You in the wrong county, boy.”
Man: “You woke bastard!”
Clerk: “Oh no, you’re right! I’m refusing to sell something for political reasons. I’m shamed!”
Yep, makes total sense.
Again…dumbasses.
Sieg Guile
After The Spectator’s Douglas Murray went viral via a devastating clip in which he contrasted Hamas to the Nazis, I penned a column affirming his stance (since then, Murray outdid himself by turning human pig Cenk Uygur into bacon bits). One of the points I made in my column was that not only are Palestinians in general (and Hamas specifically) more violently anti-Jewish than pre-Kristallnacht Nazis, but the Nazis actually downplayed their anti-Semitism before taking power, during the 1932 election, when they had to win a popular vote.
In response to that, hack “journalist” David Grossman tweeted:
The “before taking power” line plays into one of the oldest pieces of Holocaust denial: that the German people were simply tricked into supporting Hitler’s anti-Semitism. In reality, “Mein Kampf” was a best-seller, and Hitler’s worldview was very clearly understood by ’32.
A gross-man indeed. And a stupid one.
Mein Kampf was not about killing Jews. It’s a self-indulgent, lugubrious tome that was ignored until Hitler became chancellor, at which time it became a best-seller only because the party bought in bulk to give away free copies (a sales-boosting tradition that egotists like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to this day). Hitler himself felt embarrassed by the book. It’s a terrible work, and a “blueprint” for nothing more than his lack of skill as a writer.
Most of the German Jews who fled in 1933 returned the next year (see The Myth of Rescue for the data on that), because there was a general perception that they could ride the Hitler thing out. That feeling of “we can deal with this” only increased in ’36 when Hitler curtailed anti-Semitism for the Olympics. Hitler didn’t run on genocide, and even German Jews, in the immediate postelection years, didn’t think genocide was coming. There was nothing Hitler did to Jews in his early years in power that surpassed in cruelty Jim Crow laws in the U.S. People just lived with that stuff in those days.
Yes, Germans knew going in that Hitler didn’t like Jews, but at the same time, dozens of sitting U.S. senators and congressmen didn’t like blacks. These days, it’s an earthquake if a white politician even insinuates disdain for a nonwhite group. But 100 years ago it was normal. I know, hard to imagine, Zoomer. But it was so standard for white politicians in the U.S. and Europe to hold positions that some groups deserved less rights than “the white man,” it wasn’t shocking to anybody back then.
Even Kristallnacht, which did shock German Jews, was essentially just one night’s worth of the average Southern black’s experience with the Klan for decades. Obviously, European Jews knew their history of pogroms and expulsions, but until Kristallnacht, there was a sense that the Nazi thing could be endured. And by the time German Jews began getting their one-way tickets “East” in fall 1941, it was too late to leave.
The idea that Hitler told the Germans in 1932 that he’d kill the Jews, and the Germans voted for that, is pseudohistory at its worst.
Grab ’Em by the Pussy-Whipped
Thirty years ago Chris Rock was the most exciting young comic on the planet. His seminal “blacks vs. niggaz” routine gave voice to the most underserved and ignored demographic in the nation—civilized, intelligent blacks who are shamed by, and in fear of, their savage underclass. That comedy bit was like Sam Kinison’s 1980s riff about starving Africans. It’s what put Kinison on the map, because after years of being guilted and bullied by “artists and musicians” to give give give to starving UngaBungas, Kinison served as a release for all of us who were just tired of it.
Every year ’round this time Christmas music plays nonstop in my home, and to this day I can’t hear the line in “Do They Know It’s Christmas”—“Where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow”—without hearing Kinison screaming, “You live in a fucking desert! Nothing grows here! Nothing’s gonna grow here! C’mere…you see this? This is sand. You know what it’s gonna be a hundred years from now? It’s gonna be sand! We have deserts in America, we just don’t live in ’em, asshole!”
Rock’s “niggaz” routine was like that; an emotional release for people sick and tired of being told that they need to tolerate and “uplift” their inferiors.
A lesser-known bit from that same Rock concert dealt with the exact moment a woman knows she has her man by the balls. When she knows he’s fully whipped. If she insults her man’s mama, and he doesn’t strike her, that man is owned.
Last month, when Trump bragged about being endorsed by BLM, that was the same dynamic, even if not consciously played out. Fact is, though, if Trump had consciously wanted to test how mindless his followers are, the extent to which they’ll not only swallow but applaud anything he tells them, he couldn’t have chosen a better test case than to boast of a BLM endorsement.
MAGAs have spent the past three and a half years braying about how “BLM BURNED DOWN AMERICA! WHY WERE J6ERS IMPRISONED BUT BLM TERRORISTS GO FREE? COMMIE BLM MURDERERS!!! TO HELL WITH BLM!”
Then Trump says, “I’m honored by the endorsement of BLM,” and these same MAGAs go, “Whoooo-hoooo! Another victory for the god-king! Welcome, BLM! MAGA and BLM—besties forever!”
And now Trump knows that if he can get away with that, if he can be celebrated by his zombies for that, he owns them.
Because in the end, for all the vaunted bullshit about what a dealmaker Trump is, how his “understanding of business dynamics” would assist him in dealing with Congress, in fact the only power dynamic he understands is that of sycophant and boss. As president, he was buffaloed by Democrats, stymied by his own party, steamrolled by the D.C. bureaucracy, and intimidated by the courts. But he grew the most loyal kamikaze sycophant base since Hirohito.
And to him, that’s victory enough. He’s got you by the balls, bitch.
That satisfies him more than a second term.
Merry Christmas! Part II coming next week to ring in 2024.
]]>Case in point: the recent L.A. freeway fire that crippled the I-10 Downtown. As there’d been a homeless encampment under that stretch, the angle for conservatives was obvious: “Haw-haw-haw, L.A. homeless burned down the freeway! Blue city gets what it deserves.”
It was an irresistible angle. The problem is, it wasn’t true. The fire started in a gated lumber and vehicle storage yard next to the freeway. We don’t know who started the fire; it might’ve been a hobo, it might’ve been something more sinister (the storage company has a history of shady dealings). But the fire didn’t start in the homeless camp.
Frankly, I found it funny that certain people who say “jet fuel can’t melt steel” thought bums cooking beans (or meth) can take out concrete and steel columns.
Another angle that’s driving me nuts is how rightist “journalists” and “influencers” can no longer cover stories of riots, crime, and leftist extremism without reflexively relating everything to J6.
“Blacks looted a store last night, yet there were no mass roundups. Compare that with the treatment of the J6 patriots!”
“Hamas supporters loudly banged on the White House gate last night. Insurrection, anyone? Where’s the fed gestapo beating them down like they did the J6 sweeties?”
“Gun-grabbers chanted in the state capitol rotunda. I’ve never seen a worse insurrection! Compare that to the peaceful J6ers who only bear-sprayed and assaulted cops while ransacking congressional offices.”
Crime, urban unrest, leftist support for Hamas, anti-gun extremism—these are winning hands for rightists, but they’re blown when they’re bundled with J6. Because who’s that angle for? Only the choir.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has spawned a breathtaking amount of bad rightist angles. A few weeks ago, CAA—one of the top talent agencies in the world—dropped its two most stridently anti-white authors, Saira Rao and Regina Jackson. These two Rain Women are among the ugliest (and I mean that literally and figuratively) white-haters in the nation. But they were fired for hating Jews.
And the rightist take? “Hmmmph, they were never fired for hating whites, but now that they attack Jews they get fired? Oh, the unfairness of it all!”
An imbecilic angle. If you truly care about ending anti-whiteness, then use the fact that when white hate morphs into Jew hate it becomes a fireable offense. Use it, don’t reject it. Your enemy has a chink, and in the words of George Takei as he hand-jobs his Chinese houseboy, you gotta work that chink.
It’s actually great that Jew-hatred is taking out some of the most high-profile white-haters in America. “White activists” LARP as Patton, but Patton would never hesitate to make use of a creative way to eradicate his foes. Yet these pussy Pattons prefer to whine: “Oh fie, Rao hath insulted my race a millionfold without sanction. Yet now she doth slander the Jews, and she is slain. What hypocrites be they at CAA!”
What result do you expect from that angle? That Sheldon Shmucklestein at CAA will say, “Oh NO, I have been a hypocrite! I shall mend my ways and treat white-hatred as I treat hatred of Jews” ?
Sheldon shows you a weakness you can exploit, and instead of exploiting it you attack Sheldon in some moronic attempt to get him to “soul-search” (or “expose his hypocrisy”), when all that’s likely to do is harden his anti-whiteness.
Be the “general” you think you are: Thank Sheldon and use his desire to fight Jew-haters to get more of your anti-white enemies dispatched.
If the only way to end the immunity of high-profile anti-white celebrities is to nail them for Jew-hatred, don’t bitch about it, exploit it.
Which brings us to the right’s dumbest-of-the-dumb Israel/Gaza angle, the one that got Elon Musk in trouble.
Here’s the tweet Musk called “the actual truth”:
Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.
This was parroted by Tucker Carlson during an interview with Candace “Thomas Not-so-well” Owens.
If the biggest donors at, say, Harvard have decided we’re going to [shut down hate speech against Jews] now, where were you the last 10 years for white genocide? You were allowing this, and then I found myself really hating those people. You were calling my children immoral for their skin color. You paid for that. So, why shouldn’t I be mad at you?
Fascinating. Soros monster Susan Sarandon received decades of just deserts in one brutal serving when she lost her career for saying, “Hooray! Now Jews are getting a taste of the hatred they doled out to Muslims!” And the right’s response is to mimic that, to say exactly what got an Oscar-winning leftist canceled, but with “Muslim” traded out for “white.”
“Hooray! Now Jews are getting a taste of the hatred they doled out to whites.”
I don’t see the gain. Instead of reveling in the downfall of a beast who’s spent the past three decades helping black criminals get released from prison, instead of using the momentum of Sarandon’s downfall to attack other white-haters, rightists prefer to ape her: “You’re getting what you deserve, Jews!”
This is the loser strategy of incels who’ve given up trying to get the girl so they call her “cunt.”
Rightists can influence, but by harnessing prevailing winds instead of scolding them. Reagan understood this. When Carter angered Jews over Israel, did Reagan scold? “Well, you idiot Jews voted Dem so enjoy the fruits of your stupidity! Rot, you kikes.” No, Reagan exploited; in 1980 he nearly matched Eisenhower’s record GOP take of the Jewish vote. Because Reagan was…oh, shit, what’s that word? That word Republicans aren’t anymore…
Oh, yeah: “smart.”
Today’s rightists prefer “go away I hate you” over “welcome to the club” because their idols are mediocre thinkers who, as the untalented always do, gravitate toward shock angles over substantial contributions. Candace Owens is just Luther Campbell with boobs. Campbell, of 1990s 2 Live Crew fame, possessed no talent, zero musical ability. So his “shows” consisted of him getting BJs live on stage. Of course, he’d get arrested by white lawmen for indecent exposure, so he became legendary for being a balls-out (literally) fearless hero!
Owens is the same beast. She’ll flirt with Hitlerism, Hamas, and moon-landing denial, just to let you know how based she is. But she contributes nothing of substance.
The Campbell BJ concerts were filmed. Indeed, in the ’90s, you could buy them on “most shocking moments” VHS tapes. But does anybody “rock out” to them today? Or even remember them? Did Campbell leave a musical legacy? Of course not. It was nothing more than a stunt to make blacks go, “DAAAAAYUM, he CRAYZEE,” and whites go, “What a brave negro challenging societal norms!”
That’s Owens. And that’s why in her case, simpleton rightists do go “welcome to the club.” Because these folks are incredibly easily manipulated by grifters. Doesn’t matter that she was a leftist race-hustler who extorted her college. She’s black, and BASED!
But white voters with no grifting agenda? They don’t get that welcome.
Last week, a clip went viral on Twitter: A white L.A. small-business owner interviewed by the local news told reporters that he’s had it with Democrats because of rampant crime. He said he’d voted for Newsom, Biden, and Bass, and he regrets it.
And the response from high-profile rightists was summed up by James Woods and his 3.7 million followers: Go to hell; you got what you voted for, fuck off.
This is the same James Woods who used to deride Kanye West as a clown until he got BASED, at which point Woods declared him a “sage” and a “guru.”
Welcome, based millionaire sieg-heiling blacky!
Working-class whitey who’s seen the light? Get bent; we don’t want you.
The constructive response to the newly enlightened white business owner would’ve been, “Welcome, pal, and BTW, Karen Bass isn’t the problem because no city mayor has jurisdiction over a county DA. Help us defeat George Gascon in November.”
But no. As you can see from this thread and this one, Woods’ followers—thousands of them—were of one voice: “He voted wrong, he wasn’t with us from the start; he can’t be salvaged, so fuck him.”
At the heart of MAGA is political Calvinism. The elect and the damned have already been predestined. No need to seek converts; sinners cannot be saved. To hell with the independents and unconvinced. To hell with canvassing and early/mail-in voting. Elections are predestined too. All politics is a war between the Devil and God—the Deep State and Trump. The election will be decided by principalities, not flesh. There’s no need to campaign, convince, or display anything but hostility toward those who were not with us from the womb.
Esau have we hated.
Now, mere days after tweeting fuck off to the white working man who seemed to be coming around, Woods retweeted Steven Crowder about how a trip to a “black-owned barbershop” convinced him that blacks are coming around to MAGA. And Woods replied that Crowder’s tweet made him “full of hope.”
So what do we make of that? Well, we can continue the biblical angle (Jacob and Esau hated each other because they were of the same womb; white rightists are tougher on racial “brothers”), but maybe we should get less fancy-pantsed with this (generally, the less ornate the angle, the better). Woods is simply an idiot. He sees someone from the one demographic most likely to support the GOP—working-class whites—and he tells him to get bent. But then he hears that a few blacks—the demographic least likely to vote GOP—are slightly friendly, and he’s like YIPPEE-DIPPY-DOOOOO!
He deems the salvageable demographic unsalvageable, and the unsalvageable demographic salvageable (yes, Reagan appealed to Jews because he saw an opening, and it worked. But he didn’t do it at the expense of his most loyal and likely voters. Sure, embrace “friendly” blacks, but not while also telling whites to screw off).
Woods, like leftist whites, defines himself by acceptance from nonwhites. He’s in it for his own self-esteem, not a “win.” Because MAGA Calvinists know that the win is in the god-king’s hands.
So they’ll piss away opportunities and piss on potential allies, in exchange for macho-man “based takes.”
Also known as “bad angles.”
And that’s very bad news.
Angles can make sugar taste like poison or poison taste like sugar, but they can’t turn poison into sugar.
Sometimes the news is just bad…no matter how you angle it.
]]>