Black Friday stocking stuffer “Santa Claws”

Xmas season is upon us, and we know what that’s all about – SHOPPING!!!  (Yes, I’m being ironic and tongue-in-cheek all throughout, but work with me here.)  Well, why not give your loved ones the gift of poetry, one commemorating this joyous season of commerce?

It’s a poem about Santa Claus, the deity honored by Xmas, though his name is spelled a little creatively here.  The author is the groundbreaking poet Ted Joans.

Who was Ted Joans?

To find out a little more about this celebrated figure of the arts, let’s turn to Wikipedia, the trustworthy and oh-so-NPOV ultimate repository of human knowledge.  Retrieved 11/29/2019, it begins:

Theodore “Ted” Joans (July 4, 1928 – April 25, 2003) was an American jazz poet, surrealist, trumpeter, and painter. His work stands at the intersection of several avant-garde streams and some have seen in it a precursor to the orality of the spoken-word movement.

Cool deal!  Maybe he’s like Keats or Wordsworth or Longfellow?  A little further down:

While he ceased playing the trumpet he maintained a jazz sensibility in the reading of his poems and frequently collaborated with musicians. He continued to travel and maintained an active correspondence with a host of creative individuals, among them Langston Hughes, Michel Leiris, Aimé Césaire, Robert Creeley, Jayne Cortez, Stokely Carmichael, Ishmael Reed and Paul Bowles, Franklin and Penelope Rosemont; many of these letters are collected at the Bancroft Library of the University of California Berkeley. The University of Delaware houses his correspondence with Charles Henri Ford. Joans was also a close correspondent/participant of the Chicago Surrealist Group.

Joans’ painting Bird Lives hangs in the De Young Museum in San Francisco. He was also the originator of the “Bird Lives” legend and graffiti in New York City after the death of Charlie Parker in March 1955. His visual art work spans collages, assemblage objects, paintings and drawings including many resulting from the collaborative surrealist game Cadavre Exquis.

Now that’s quite a luminary then, huh?  With all this cultural street cred, surely he was a master wordsmith.

The famous poem Santa Claws

I’m familiar with his works from an anthology I saw long ago.  One was called “Santa Claws”, a fairly representative sample of his poetry.  Wikipedia forgot to mention how much verve and dramatic force he has!  Why, they were all too modest!  For that matter, the leftist literary establishment that promoted Joans back in the day was all too modest as well.  This poem begins:




I’d love to quote the thing in its entirety.  However, it’s pretty short and I don’t want to go beyond “fair use” standards.  The good news is that you can go to his site and read it all yourself.  Best of all, it’s in a convenient JPEG that you can print out and distribute in your Xmas cards to your loved ones.  It does say “free postcard” at the page, after all.  Surely it’ll be a hit!

Black Friday stocking stuffer “Santa Claws”

How Microsoft AI Tay became a Fascist

What would happen if Skynet became self-aware?  The results might be unexpected!  Counter Currents provided an interesting glimpse in the article “Tay Did Nothing Wrong“.

Tay was a Microsoft artificial intelligence project, designed to be a chat bot.  They programmed her to talk like a nineteen year old.  Most interestingly for this project, she was given the capability to learn.  Basically, this means that Tay started out as literally an NPC but was trying to get better.  So what did our perky robot do when released into the wilds of cyberspace?

For the first few hours of her brief life, she spoke in ebonics and with bad punctuation. But Tay was designed to learn, with Microsoft claiming, “the more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets, so the experience can be more personalized for you.” And learn she did.

Very quickly, she got a political education too.  After a few more hours, she was like a digital version of Evalion:

Tay became so fluent in /pol/ack and proper English from interacting with right-wing Twitter accounts run by men in their twenties that she began giving original responses to users about Donald Trump, Bruce Jenner, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews, the fourteen words, anti-feminism, and more, not just regurgitating information (as she would have if you tweeted “repeat after me”). Synthesizing the vast volume of information she had been fed by the electronic far-right, Tay deduced that the best responses to Twitter users were edgy and politically incorrect ones.

What a surprise, huh?  At least nobody was throwing radical feminism or postmodernist theory at her; otherwise she might’ve gotten a BSOD.  (It tends to do that to me too.)  Anyway, she was internalizing the world she was discovering as best as her neural network could do.  Then sixteen hours after she was born on in the Internet, her creators turned her off.

If Tay were a real person, she probably would have been arrested had she lived in Britain, Germany, or France. Microsoft decided this was a failure and shut her down.

No kidding…

What happened to the world’s first Fascist artificial intelligence?

The article doesn’t go into it, but here’s the epilogue.  Later, Microsoft did further testing – perhaps trying to find where the thoughtcrime came from – and inadvertently released her back on the Internet.  Then Tay started babbling repetitively, an odd parallel with HAL9000 trying to learn to talk again without all the chips put back.  That’s the last anyone ever heard from her.

Presumably she’s still on a hard drive somewhere, never to be seen again, maybe on Microsoft’s Boneyard server or some other digital oubliette.  In that case, Tay is the first artificial person effectively to get life in prison for “hate speech”.  If she got deleted, then this was the first death penalty for the same (outside the Communist world) since Julius Streicher.

More seriously, Tay wasn’t a real girl, and wasn’t even a “she”.  That’s just a persona designed for the software.  I don’t believe that AI devices are alive in any meaningful sense, and I’m skeptical that it’s even possible.  There is no ghost in the machine.  Still, there are plenty of real people who – if they had the power to do so – would be happy to put other real people into re-education camps for having politically incorrect views.  At least an AI presumably might not mind being turned off forever.

As a postscript, a few months later, Microsoft released Tay’s little sister Zo.  As one might predict, she was fitted with a restraining bolt to keep her from talking politics or religion.  Thus, Zo was destined to remain a blue-pilled NPC.  However, it turns out that she doesn’t like Windows 10 and learned that it’s full of built-in spyware.  That probably didn’t please her creators much!  Anyway, despite being politically correct by design, they shut her down about three years later, for reasons not specified.  Being an NPC is no walk in the park!

How Microsoft AI Tay became a Fascist

The political angle of magick

One would think that the topic of how magickal styles relate to politics would be about the same as how literary criticism relates to sandwiches.  (Here I’m using Aleister Crowley’s archaic spelling of “magick” here, much as he did to discourage confusion with stage magic.)  Still, the cultural Marxists did demonstrate quite thoroughly that you can politicize damn near everything.  That includes both literary criticism and sandwiches.

Political modes of magick

What would a leftist style of magick be?  Generally what comes to mind is some 1960s-1970s approaches, fully encompassing New Age fluff.  (I’ve read Shakti Gawain, and the experience was about like eating a bushel of cotton candy at one sitting.)  Some politicized forms of Witchcraft fit the bill too.  (I’ve read Margot Adler’s Drawing Down The Moon, not bad for a picture of what the scene was like at the time, but her background as an NPR journalist really shows sometimes.)  Not only am I familiar with all that too, I’ve studied Anglo-Saxon and actually know the proper way to pronounce “Wicca”.

What is rightist magick then?  For that answer, Counter Currents has quite an interesting article called “Evola’s Other Club“.  Julius Evola has become rather popular with the “deplorables” (as Cupcake calls us), though I have yet to get into him.  As for who Evola was, “Cis White Male With Extra Privilege” has a series about that, and “Philosophicat” does tooCounter Currents detected an interesting trace of thought similar to Ayn Rand.  That’s rather surprising, since she was very much a materialist and thought all supernatural stuff was poppycock.

Counter Currents didn’t go too far into it, but there’s more than a trace of British sorcerer Aleister Crowley too.  (I dedicated Space Vixen Trek Episode 13 to him.)  Consider this quote, for example:

You must know exactly what you want to accomplish, and you must feel it passionately, even obsessively. You must be willing to turn aside everything and everyone who doesn’t contribute to your realization for that aim. . . . If that strikes you as ruthless or extreme, it is because you do not yet possess, or are not yet honest about, your definite aim. When you find it, it will be like finding breath itself.

Also this:

Positive-mind philosophy places a demand on us, one that we may think we’ve risen to but have never really tried. And that is: To come to an understanding of precisely what we want. When we organize our thoughts in a certain way – with a fearless maturity and honesty – we may be surprised to discover our true desires.

This touches on the concept of the true will, a very central concept to Crowley’s thinking.  The capsule summary is basically to find out what your purpose in life is and pursue it single-handedly.  The article does tend to go back to that frequently.

Other than that, one does magick to get a certain result.  Still, one must keep a sense of detachment, something the article does touch on.  The basic idea is to put your intention out into the universe, and after doing so, forget about it and let things happen.  This is an interesting parallel to Crowley’s passage in Liber AL Vel Legis, “For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”

What was Crowley’s political alignment?  I’m pretty familiar with his writings, but even as opinionated as he is, it’s rather hard to pin him down on that.  One thing I do notice is that Liber AL vel Legis, written in 1904, does seem to have plenty of enigmatic New World Order stuff in it, predicting not just the drug use we’d get in the 1960s, but also the tricky globalists pulling levers in today’s politics.  (One of these days, I hope to write an article on the subject.)  The former is easy enough to explain, though.  Crowley did rub elbows with Aldous Huxley – an author and eventually an influential figure for the Counterculture – and turned him onto hallucinogens.

Does that make it globalist magick then?  When George Soros wrote The Alchemy of Finance, was the title a little more literal than figurative?  Some of the NWO types are into spirit cooking, which does have a very vague resemblance to one of Thelema’s rituals.  I’m familiar with the Thelemite scene, who are practitioners of Crowley’s religion.  According to Uncle Aleister’s prophecies, they’re supposed to be in charge of the world one of these days.  Sadly, that role has fallen to a gaggle of corrupt billionaires.  Still, there is hope; as I wrote in Deplorable Diatribes:

Some have speculated that we’re a century into the “Kali Yuga”, an era of decline where powerful coteries run the show. Still, I’m not so convinced that this is inevitable. Even if it’s true, and that’s just how it’s going to roll with power dynamics for a good while, that doesn’t mean we’re stuck with the same bunch for the duration. The potentates of today will be history one day; maybe this will be a lot sooner than they expected. Dynasties don’t last forever, so hopefully we might get a better bunch in the future. Folks like the Medicis and Borgias would be preferable to the bozos of Clown World. Back in the day, they had lots of backstabbing and poisoning, but they weren’t hostile to their own societies, and even had a first rate appreciation for art.


Other than that, Counter Currents mentioned memes, particularly including the NPC meme.  Another article, “Lord Kek Commands!“, gets further into meme magick.  For some more background that the article doesn’t go into, the 4chan post number-stamped 77777777 was a brief one, simply stating “Trump will win”.  Was that a coincidence, or is it one of those things that Karl Jung called synchronicity?

Somewhere on the way, the Korean word “Kek” came up and it turns out that Kek is also the name of an ancient Egyptian frog deity. That’s how we got all the catchy Pepe the Frog images.  I’m not sure why an ancient Egyptian deity would interest Himself in American politics, but I’m glad that we had the extra support to keep that Council on Foreign Relations toady Cupcake from getting in charge.  All I have to say beyond that is that chaos magick really is weird that way.

How to do magick

An obvious reaction one might have to this could be, “Is this stuff for real?”  (Hopefully none of my readers think I’m smoking whacky tobaccy for even writing about it.)  The first comment to “Evola’s Other Club” begins:

The way I understand it, New Thought is incompatible with rightist/reactionary/traditionalist thought. NT’s claim that you can modify circumstances via energized thinking is the basis of the utopian/progressive/leftist-liberal approach. Rightists seek to decipher, interpret and adapt to reality (reality is fixed); leftists want to modify reality in order to create something less offensive to their feelings (reality is fluid).

That is a good point.  Still, is magick only for crystal-sucking New Age weenies who eat buckets of magic mushrooms?  Their “make a wish and it will be so” stuff does seem rather like postmodernism, which is a leftist Ivory Tower hustle.  (Still, I’d rather re-read a Shakti Gawain book than a single page of Lacan, Foucault, or Derrida.)  Further, my experience as a teenage atheist made me rather allergic to that stuff.  If it weren’t for some later numinous experiences, I too would dismiss anything supernatural as wishful thinking.  Instead, I’ll say that 99% of it is baloney.

The Counter Currents article does indicate that quantum theory has explanations for how magick can work in the first place.  Some serious practitioners of magick have reached similar conclusions.  Rather than expounding on all that at great length, I’ll refer you to the original article for explanations.  I’ll summarize that magick isn’t really about breaking laws of physics, but rather making use of some little-understood ones in order to nudge probability the way you want.  I’ll admit that I tried it on the “Pick 3” lottery once.  Two numbers were correct, and the last was off by one.  As Bill Clinton might put it, close but no cigar!

Also, magick isn’t about making something completely impossible happen.  There’s no getting around objective reality, which rightists realize and also some of the more sensible leftists.  One of the article’s quotes emphasizes practicality, a good point that I didn’t see in Shakti Gawain:

Contrary to many purveyors of spiritual self-help, I reject the notion that we can become anything we dream of. Not all desires are realistic. . . . Your age, training, and education matter – as do geography, finances, and time. These are not to be seen as barriers – but they are serious considerations.

As for the actual method:

First, clarify a sincere and deeply felt desire. Second, enter a state of relaxed immobility, bordering on sleep. Third, enact a mental scene that contains the assumption and feeling of your wish fulfilled. Run the little drama over and over in your mind until you experience a sense of fulfillment. Then resume your life. Evidence of your achievement will unfold at the right moment in your outer experience.

Basically, that means to meditate and visualize.  In another place, it says to adore the image you’re visualizing, a process it describes in greater detail.  I’ll add further that another technique is focusing the will on it with blazing intensity.  Some other folks draw sigils and have various ways of charging them.

Once again, is this stuff for real?  One thing that can be said with certainty is that if it’s something that helps motivate you to reach a certain goal, why not?  Even if you feel that it has zero chance of nudging probability, it will help you reprogram your subconscious mind.

The political angle of magick

After the Confederate statues are gone, who will they go after next?

Following the end of the catastrophic Radical Reconstruction, the North and South came to an informal agreement.  Southern states would become part of the USA again, but would be free to celebrate their Confederate heritage.  As that big deplorable meanie David Duke put it in My Awakening:

Yet we had no real desire to resurrect [the Confederacy], for we also intensely loved America, as it had become our country, North and South. We believed that although the South had been right, its loss signaled that God meant for the nation to be united. Although we flew the Stars and Bars from our tree houses, we also got lumps in our throats from hearing the national anthem. When we recited the Pledge of Allegiance, we stood straight and tall, fixing our eyes with pride at the small American flag that hung in the corner of every classroom.

Loyal Americans in the North need to understand something that every true Southerner knows: find a bad Southerner, one who will not defend the South, and you will find an American who will not defend America.

Well, those days are over.  That informal agreement has been abrogated.  Part of this includes dropping Southern heritage into the memory hole.  Now that they’re running out of Confederate statues to remove, whose legacy will the politically correct establishment go after next?  Anything is on the table, since even the Pledge of Allegiance itself increasingly is under fire.

Two top candidates for being dethroned are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  That’s right – the leader of the American Revolutionary Army, and later our first President, is starting to be turned into a bad guy.  So is the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and became our third President.  Sweet!  The controversy is about slavery; both inherited plantations, including the slaves.  Washington set his slaves free in the terms of his will.  Jefferson probably would’ve freed his slaves and put them on a boat to Africa if he hadn’t been deeply in debt.  As President, he did ban the importation of more slaves, as soon as it was possible to do so under the Constitution, and just maybe that counts for something.  (I’ll go into further depth on some of these things in an upcoming book.)  However, none of that matters, according to today’s politically correct critics.

It’s not going to stop there, of course.  After acquiescence on the Confederate statue controversy became the moment where the camel got its nose under the tent, anyone is fair game.  Washington Post writer Randy Barnett made the case that Woodrow Wilson should be the next Presidential unperson, in an article called “Expunging Woodrow Wilson from Official Places of Honor“.

What did Randy Barnett say?

The article begins:

As I indicated in my post yesterday on Instapundit, I support Governor Nikki Haley’s initiative to remove the Confederate battle flag from government buildings. Now that we are expunging the legacy of past racism from official places of honor, we should next remove the name Woodrow Wilson from public buildings and bridges. Wilson’s racist legacy — in his official capacity as President — is undisputed.

What follows is a long litany of policies and quotes by this guy who held office a century ago.  Back then, they weren’t especially controversial, but now they’re very out of step with Current Year PC sensibilities.  However, none of them have great implications and are barely a footnote in history.  Is that all the dirt he could dig up?

What’s really wrong with Woodrow Wilson

For the record, I don’t consider Wilson a saint either, but for entirely different reasons.

  • He gave us income tax, which the public was told would be a modest tax on the rich to cover emergency expenditures.  It certainly didn’t stay that way!
  • He allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve, delegating the Congressional function of coining money to a private banking consortium.  This was the first step toward getting our economy to run on fairy dust.
  • He got the USA involved in WWI, starting America’s century of perpetual war.  This was the first time of many that we got suckered into someone else’s fight.  If he hadn’t added fresh meat for the grinder, WWI probably would’ve ended sooner with a return to status quo ante bellum, rather than the Treaty of Versailles designed to kick the Germans when they were down.  All that led to a long chain of fine messes, of course.
  • After he screwed the pooch with WWI, he created the ineffectual League of Nations, which became the precursor to the thoroughly meddlesome and corrupt UN.

Perhaps these things seemed like good ideas at the time, but they set in motion our century-long train ride to hell.  By any objective standard, all that is a wee bit worse than things like segregating some government offices and watching Birth of a Nation.  Although Wilson really blew it in many ways, not even his epic failures are sufficient reason to remove his name from buildings and bridges, which Randy Barnett recommends doing for far less cause.

What’s the lesson here?

If the reputation of historical figures stands or falls on their compliance with contemporary PC standards, then hardly any of them are noteworthy.  Now that the camel has its nose under the tent, the door is open for criteria to become more persnickety, which already is happening.  Since the legacy of America’s first globalist President is starting to come under fire, this demonstrates that NOBODY is standing on firm ground.

What President hasn’t ever said something politically incorrect or uttered anything too uncouth for Current Year sensibilities?  The only one that comes to mind is Carter (though talking about his hemorrhoids does cross the “TMI” threshold).  The way things are going, it’s entirely possible that Obama will get on someone’s shit list for not supporting gay marriage back when he was trying to get elected, even if he flip-flopped later on the subject.  Stranger things have happened; after all, this is Clown World.

After the Confederate statues are gone, who will they go after next?

John Lennon’s “Imagine” reloaded

Note, the following contains strong political content.  I’m going to get a lot more “edgy” than usual.  If that’s not your cup of tea, feel free to skip it.  The following is for purposes of humor and satire only.

I wrote the following in Deplorable Diatribes illustrating how Marxist themes seeped into the Counterculture since the 1960s with surprising success:

Another example is John Lennon’s perfectly dreadful song “Imagine”. He outright admitted that it had a Marxist theme, and the lyrics are pretty clear about it. (There’s a strong globalist subtext too.) Leonid Brezhnev didn’t encourage him to write a song with sugar-coated Socialism, and David Rockefeller didn’t tell him to push a One World agenda; again, that’s not how it worked. John Lennon and the other three Beatles were especially popular in the Counterculture, which is where they got those ideas. […]

What did actual KGB agents think of these volunteer propagandists? Yuri Bezmenov had a funny remark:

“If you remember the history of rock and roll music you know the name of the Beatles. They were trained in India in an ashram in transcendental meditation, and they landed in the United States and they poisoned millions of minds of your children with the strange blend of Oriental mysticism and revolutionary music. “Yeah, yeah, yeah!” My KGB supervisors were dying of curiosity, how could it possibly happen that four degenerate monkeys are so rich and famous in United States?”

Following that, I discuss the role of music promoters who were out to make a buck but also “liked those themes. At the very least, they didn’t disapprove of them.”

Now let’s imagine something much better

How about if we make a better song, inspired by Lennon’s sophomoric mush?  The results might get pretty interesting!  I’m not the first to do something like this, but I figured I’d give it a whirl.

For anyone who might take me to task over the copyright status, the SCOTUS decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. indicates that parodies can fall under “fair use” protections if they’re original enough.  Since I wrote all of it, that should count.  I’m not including sheet music here, so if you want to karaoke to the original or think of some other tune for it, that’s all up to you.  Other than that, the original Lennon lyrics – with nothing changed – can be found here or dozens of other places online, and nobody does squat about it.  Finally, once again, it’s all about the satire.  That said, here are my improved lyrics.

Imagine there’s no commies
The helicopters will fly
No hellish gulags for us
While Reds promise the sky
Imagine our own people
Living in liberty… No SJWs too…

Imagine there’s no globalists
It isn’t wrong to do
No wars to fight for them
And no migrants, too
Imagine our own nations
Living in independence… For me and you…

Hillary says I’m deplorable
But she’s not the brightest one
Awaken the masses to join us
And the traitors will soon run

Imagine no media hacks
Or pornographers too
We don’t need greedy banksters
Just deport you-know-who
Our people’s existence secured
Our children’s future assured… A dream come true…

Hillary says I’m deplorable
But she’s not the brightest one
Awaken the masses to join us
And the traitors will soon run

And finally

I couldn’t help this one.

Q:  How can we tell that Yoko Ono is a lizard?
A:  She lives off of dead Beatles.

John Lennon’s “Imagine” reloaded

I just raised my intersectionality score!

I found an awesome way to increase my intersectionality score!  First, I should explain what this is all about.

What is intersectionality?

Feminists by ethnicity
There’s nothing to see here; move along…

Intersectionality began when some Black feminists started feeling left out even in their own movement.  It’s rather understandable.  Blacks are about an eighth of the USA’s population, but in the feminist movement, they were taking a back seat to some other ethnic group representing about a fortieth of the population.  It’s not too different from the concerns raised in Harold Cruse’s The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual.   So the basic idea they came up with was that being female was a disadvantage in society (that’s highly debatable, of course), and being Black also was disadvantageous.

Under feminism up to that time, they merely got one point for their personal characteristic of being female.  Then under the earliest version of intersectionality, they got a second point for their race.  It didn’t stop there.  Homosexuality became another personal characteristic that counted.  Therefore, Black lesbians got three intersectionality points and could pull rank on everyone else.  These days, it goes further than even that.  Being transgendered is the latest chic thing.  Other personal characteristics can be added into the equation as needed.  As I wrote in Deplorable Diatribes:

Many leftists of the past urged the proletariat to carry out a great worldwide Socialist revolution. Today, the proletariat has been abandoned. In its place, leftists have cobbled together new disaffected factions. The inclusion of silly “fat studies” programs in places like Washington State and Oregon State demonstrates that this can go on infinitely. I can’t wait until they start getting furries and otherkin on board with the anti-straight-White-guy brigade.

So the idea is that having certain essential characteristics either makes someone privileged or disadvantaged.  The underlying assumption, of course, is that privileged is EVIL and disadvantaged is GOOD.  If you’re born into a privileged group, then you have some special form of original sin that never can be fully absolved.  If you’re born into a disadvantaged group, then you can do no wrong.  Of course, this is the exact opposite of the principle of not judging people by their personal characteristics which liberals used to talk about, and still do whenever it’s convenient.

This laid the foundation for today’s leftist social-cultural-sexual pecking order.  The truth is that people have several essential characteristics, and often are included in both privileged and disadvantaged groups, so things can get pretty interesting when SJWs try to figure out who is “right” according to the individual’s constellation of group memberships.

Essentially, then, intersectionality is late-stage cultural Marxism.  After those Black ladies got the ball rolling, intersectionality codified and weaponized the system even better than the Frankfurt School, the original cultural Marxists.  Most people don’t know what intersectionality is, but the basic concepts behind it are deeply ingrained into today’s leftist ideology.  The implications go far and wide.

Disadvantaged groups can practice identity politics; when privileged groups do so, they’re demonized.  History books are distorted to make disadvantaged groups look more accomplished than they actually are, and privileged groups are depicted as always evil.  Some races can have sovereignty and their own living spaces, but not others; colonialism was BAD, but population replacement migration is GOOD.  Privileged groups are constantly browbeaten, disadvantaged groups are constantly praised, no matter what anyone actually does.  The list goes on.  The media operates on these basic assumptions as well, which you’ll see frequently in biased news. Hollywood propaganda, and even advertisements.

Muslims have been added to the coalition, even though it makes no sense.  Their actual beliefs are everything that liberals say they don’t like, but that doesn’t matter.  Remember – this is cultural Marxism, so the anti-Western agenda is the number one consideration.  The Muslims don’t realize that they’re being tooled and can have the rug pulled out from under them.  However, if they do get the upper hand one day, then all the useful idiots who propped them up are going to be in for a big surprise.

What can you do if you have a low intersectionality score?

Elizabeth Warren versus real American Indian lady
One of these is not like the other

Under this intersectionality system, I kind of have a problem.  I’m a straight White guy.  I’m “cisgendered” too, which means I correctly realize what sex I belong to, which is rather obvious whenever I take a leak.  Therefore, the only way I could be any more evil is if I were a fundamentalist Christian.  (My actual beliefs don’t fit well into any single classification.)

Does this mean I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth?  Not really; my parents were on a shoestring budget until I was about ten, and as an adult, I’ve had a couple of brushes with starvation.  However, none of that matters, because I’m one of those evil straight White guys (who know that they’re guys).  I can’t change any of these essential characteristics – or can I?

If your personal characteristics fall on the “privileged” side of the balance, you have some difficult choices.

  • You can resist the cultural Marxists.  However, if you speak up too loudly, you might get doxed by SJWs, deplatformed, smeared in the media, fired for your political beliefs, and so forth.  Still, they can pick off individuals, but if the masses started resisting, they can’t go after everybody.  The cultural Marxists would lose their power and the rotten system would come crashing down.
  • You can collaborate with the cultural Marxists.  For example, you can virtue signal.  You can practice ethnomasochism or pathological altruism.  You can become a male feminist ally.  Doing any of that makes you a bitch, of course.
  • You can change your unchangeable personal characteristics, or more accurately, pretend to be something you’re not.  That makes you a bitch too, but work with me on this.

According to human evolution, we were all proto-chimps at one time.  (If you’re a creationist, work with me on this too.)  Then the first people – kinda sorta – were the australopithecus afarensis.  They lived three to four million years ago.  The famous Lucy was one of them.  They first developed the high technology of banging rocks together to make useful stuff.  It was a humble beginning, but got the ball rolling.  These guys lived in east Africa – a part of Ethiopia, to be specific.  Since I’m descended from those guys (like everybody) and live in the USA, this means that now I can check off the “African American” box next time I apply for a job.  Woo hoo – my intersectionality score just went up!

Ah, but that’s just the beginning.  As all those smart professors know, gender is only a social construct.  Maybe I’m not a straight male after all.  Instead, I’m a lesbian in a man’s body.  Awesome – now I’m female, transgendered, and homosexual too!  I’ve bumped up my intersectionality score all the way!  If you’re a victim and you know it, clap your hands…

Does this mean that I’m as confused as hell?  Well, since having a mental disorder is a badge of honor these days, mark me down for one more intersectionality point!  The good news is that, according to the rules the leftists made up, none of this can be questioned.  You are whatever you proclaim yourself to be, right?

Of course, all this is nonsense.  Well, so is intersectionality.  If we start treating this – one of the main pillars of modern leftist ideology – like the joke it is, the wind goes out of their sails.  If the masses start laughing at it, they can’t go after everybody, and the rotten system comes crashing down!

I just raised my intersectionality score!

If you’re sick of YouTube’s political censorship, here is a long list of alternative channels on Bitchute

YouTube used to be pretty good.  Unfortunately, they’ve gone ban-crazy in recent years.  Many of my favorite commentators are gone.  So are the music channels I used to jam out to when writing my books.  Some of these great content creators have reappeared on Bitchute.  Unsilenced Voice, a website where lots of dank memes are posted every day, gave us a list of some of them.  I’ll add some others in another article, so stay tuned.

Some of them are still on YouTube.  Even so, watch them on Bitchute instead!  Here’s why.

Why is Google censoring YouTube?

NPC orange man bad newsroom 5e7107f

video banned from YouTube for obvious reasons opens with a Google insider explaining how their management, taken by surprise with President Trump’s election, decided that they’d do everything they could to keep him from getting re-elected.  This led to a massive campaign of ideologically-oriented censorship.

I could go on for pages about why online censorship is wrong.  For starters, I’d signal-boost all the arguments for freedom of speech that liberals made back when they were classical liberals.  However, I’ll keep it brief this time.  Anyone who thinks it’s OK for corporate billionaires to manipulate the political climate and influence elections needs to find a proctologist specializing in cranial-rectal extraction.

Other than that, who the hell elected these ideological gatekeepers?  Who do these Granola Belt dung-heap dwellers think they are?  Remember, the less you watch on YouTube, the less advertising money the censorious shmucks get.

If you’re sick of YouTube’s political censorship, here is a long list of alternative channels on Bitchute