Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
Children are like pancakes.

The first one always comes out a little weird.


I used to be a math teacher.

I quit though.

Had too many problems.



Time to get up and get going, today's bad decisions aren't going to make themselves.

A foot of new snow, yes, but at least you can't see the dog poop anymore!

Bon Jovi must be ¾ of the way there by now.

There are times I wish I had a clone, but then I realize I could never live with that jerk.

Why the heck do underwear and socks come in resealable bags, but potato chips don't?

I just cannot believe I have to be an adult the rest of my life.

My family told me to get help with my drinking, so I hired a bartender.

I'm tired of winter. I want to fast-forward to complaining about how hot it is.

My high school was so small, we had drivers education and sex education in the same car.

I haven't sold a single copy of my autobiography, that's the story of my life.


I went by the house I grew up in and asked if I could go in and look around.

They said no and slammed the door in my face!

Parents can be real jerks.


Why did the banana go to the doctor?

He wasn't peeling well.

Quote of the Times;
“The data Pfizer was forced to release showed a 3% mortality rate for the vaccines, which is 12 times the COVID death rate.” - Attorney Thomas Renz

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why? by Robert Bridge

The reaction to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, no matter what you think about it, has exposed the West’s double standards

The West has taken an extreme stance against Russia over its invasion in Ukraine. This reaction exposes a high degree of hypocrisy considering that US-led wars abroad never received the punitive response they deserved.

If the current events in Ukraine have proven anything, it’s that the United States and its transatlantic partners are able to run roughshod across a shell-shocked planet – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few of the hotspots – with almost total impunity. Meanwhile, Russia and Vladimir Putin are being portrayed in nearly every mainstream media publication today as the second coming of Nazi Germany for their actions in Ukraine.

First, let’s be clear about something. Hypocrisy and double standards alone do not provide justification for the opening of hostilities by any country. In other words, just because NATO-bloc countries have been tearing a path of wanton destruction around the globe since 2001 without serious consequences, this does not give Russia, or any country, moral license to behave in a similar manner. There must be a convincing reason for a country to authorize the use of force, thereby committing itself to what could be considered ‘a just war’. Thus, the question: Can Russia’s actions today be considered ‘just’ or, at the very least, understandable? I will leave that answer up to the reader’s better judgment, but it would be idle not to consider some important details.

Only to the consumers of mainstream media fast food would it come as a surprise that Moscow has been warning on NATO expansion for well over a decade. In his now-famous speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Vladimir Putin poignantly asked the assembled global powerbrokers point blank, “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?” Later in the speech, he said that expanding military assets smack up to the Russian border “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”

Not only were the Russian leader’s concerns met with the predictable amount of disregard amid the deafening sound of crickets, NATO has gone on to bestow membership on four more countries since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). As a thought experiment that even a dolt could conduct, imagine Washington’s reaction if Moscow were building a continuously expanding military bloc in South America, for example.

The real cause for Moscow’s alarm, however, came when the US and NATO began flooding neighboring Ukraine with a dazzling array of sophisticated weaponry amid calls for membership in the military bloc. What on earth could go wrong? In Moscow’s mind, Ukraine was beginning to pose an existential threat to Russia.

In December, Moscow, quickly nearing the end of its patience, delivered draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding they halt any further military expansion eastwards, including by the accession of Ukraine or any other states. It included the explicit statement that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.” Once again, Russia’s proposals were met with arrogance and indifference by Western leaders.

While people will have varying opinions as to the shocking actions that Moscow took next, nobody can say they were not warned. After all, it’s not like Russia woke up on February 24 and suddenly decided it was a wonderful day to start a military operation on the territory of Ukraine. So yes, an argument could be made that Russia had concern for its own security as a justification for its actions. Unfortunately, the same thing may be more difficult to say for the United States and its NATO minions with regards to their belligerent behavior over the course of the last two decades.

Consider the most notorious example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This disastrous war, which the Western media hacks have chalked up as an unfortunate ‘intelligence failure’, represents one of the most egregious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. Without delving too deep into the murky details, the United States, having just suffered the attacks of 9/11, accused Saddam Hussein of Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Yet, instead of working in close cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq attempting to verify the claims, the US, together with the UK, Australia, and Poland, launched a ‘shock-and-awe’ bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. In a flash, over a million innocent Iraqis suffered death, injury, or displacement by this flagrant violation of international law.

The Center for Public Integrity reported that the Bush administration, in its effort to bolster public support for the impending carnage, made over 900 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the US and its allies. Yet somehow the Western media, which has become the most rabid proliferator for military aggression bar none, failed to find any flaw in the argument for war – that is, until after the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.

It might be expected, in a more perfect world, that the US and its allies were subjected to some stiff sanctions in the wake of this protracted eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocents. In fact, there were sanctions, just not against the United States. Ironically, the only sanctions that resulted from this crazy military adventure were against France, a NATO member that had declined the invitation, together with Germany, to participate in the Iraqi bloodbath. The global hyper-power is not used to such rejection, especially from its purported friends.

American politicians, self-assured in their Godlike exceptionalism, demanded a boycott of French wine and bottled water due to the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to war in Iraq. Other agitators for war betrayed their lack of seriousness by insisting that the popular menu item known as ‘French Fries’ be substituted with the name ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. So the lack of French Bordeaux, together with the tedious redrafting of restaurant menus, seems to have been the only real inconveniences the US and NATO suffered for indiscriminately destroying millions of lives.

Now compare this kid gloves approach to the US and its allies to the current situation involving Ukraine, where the scales of justice are clearly weighed down against Russia, and despite its not unreasonable warnings that it was feeling threatened by NATO advances. Whatever a person may think about the conflict now raging between Russia and Ukraine, it cannot be denied that the hypocrisy and double standards being leveled against Russia by its perennial detractors is as shocking as it is predictable. The difference today, however, is that bombs are going off.

Aside from the severe sanctioning of Russian individuals and the Russian economy, perhaps best summed up by the French economy minister, who said his country is committed to waging “a total economic and financial war on Russia,” there has been a deeply disturbing effort to silence news and information coming from those Russian sources that might give the Western public the option of seeing Moscow's motivations. On Tuesday, March 1, YouTube decided to block the channels of RT and Sputnik for all European users, thereby allowing the Western world to seize another chunk of the global narrative.

Considering the way that Russia has been vilified in the ‘empire of lies’, as Vladimir Putin dubbed the land of his politically motivated persecutors, some may believe that Russia deserves the non-stop threats it is now receiving. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This sort of global grandstanding, which resembles some sort of mindless virtue-signaling campaign now so popular in liberal capitals, aside from unnecessarily inflaming an already volatile situation, assumes that Russia is totally wrong, period.

Such a reckless approach, which leaves no room for debate, no room for discussion, no room for seeing Russia’s side in this extremely complex situation, only guarantees further standoffs, if not full-blown global war, further down the road. Unless the West is actively seeking the outbreak of World War III, it would be advisable to stop the hideous hypocrisy and double standards against Russia and patiently listen to its opinions and version of events (even ones presented by foreign media). It’s not as unbelievable as some people may wish to believe.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.

News of the Times;
If Russia invaded Turkey from behind, would Greece help?


The doctor told me I had only six months to live, so I shot him dead.

The judge gave me fifteen years.

Problem solved.


Why are married women heavier than single women?

Single women come home, see what’s in the fridge and go to bed.

Married women come home, see what’s in bed and go to the fridge.


How many Irishmen does it take to change a lightbulb?


One to hold the bulb, and one to drink until the room starts spinning.


Police have confirmed that the man who tragically fell from the roof of an 18 floor nightclub...

was not a bouncer.

Quote of the Times;
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O’Rourke

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Unknown Hoya and the Shadow Projection of the Left by Mark Judge

“How does it feel to have the entire world projecting its shadow onto you?”

That’s what my friend and editor said to me in the fall of 2018.

I was the focus of one of the nastiest political hits in American history. I’ve written about the ordeal for the past several years, and there is going to be a book about it in the fall. In summation, before I move on to other subjects, I wanted to address a larger spiritual reality of what happened.

What the leftist politicians, the opposition researchers, and the media in 2018 took part in was an epic example of what is called “shadow projection.” It’s a concept of Jungian psychology that refers to blaming others for the very things of which you are guilty—of casting onto them your own lust, jealousy, rage, etc. Jung’s concept has gained currency in recent years with the rise of rage in the West and the arrival of cancel culture and Twitter mobs. The world is now a free-fire zone of shadow projection.

A clear example is CNN. The network which sold itself as the center of decency and truth was actually a cesspit of affairs, sexual abuse, and on-camera wankery. CNN was one of the main squadrons in the blitzkrieg that tried to destroy me in 2018.

On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump announced his intention to nominate Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. More than two months later, a woman named Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982 when we were all in high school. The media went crazy, even going through our high school yearbook. An extortionist and future convicted felon named Michael Avenatti produced a woman named Julie Swetnick, who claimed that Brett and I had attended 10 parties in high school where girls were drugged and gang raped. Swetnick claimed that she herself was the victim of a gang rape.

Avenatti, who was on CNN practically nonstop in 2018, just got sent away to prison for two-and-a-half years. His crime was extorting a woman named Stephanie Clifford. So while Avenatti was accusing us of gang rape it was he who was, in reality, screwing over an innocent woman. In the psychology dictionary under “Shadow Projection” there should be a picture of Michael Avenatti.

It’s important to clarify that when talking about the shadow, Carl Jung emphasized it is crucial not to ignore or suppress our own shadows. Instead, we should integrate them into our psyche. “The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality,” Jung wrote, “for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.”

“Bringing the shadow to consciousness,’’ analyst Liliane Frey-Rohn once observed, ‘‘is a psychological problem of the highest moral significance. It demands that the individual hold himself accountable not only for what happens to him, but also for what he projects . . . Without the conscious inclusion of the shadow in daily life there cannot be a positive relationship to other people, or to the creative sources in the soul; there cannot be an individual relationship to the Divine.’’

In other words, own your own stuff or you will blame others for it. In Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche, Robert A. Johnson argues that some of the best-integrated people have been Christian saints and monks. After years of prayer and wrestling with darker instincts, they have achieved an equipoise that allows them to own their shadows. This isn’t the same as facilitating sin or evil. It’s living with the knowledge of your own flaws and defects and owning them.

“Today, whole businesses are devoted to containing our shadow for us,” Johnson writes. “Newspapers offer us a daily allotment of disasters, crimes, and horrors to feed our shadow nature outwardly when it should be incorporated into each of us as an integral part of our personalities.”

In 2018, the media was in a shadow-projecting frenzy, howling about my high school friends and our keg parties, sex, and wild 1980s lifestyle. I remember an interesting challenge to them that came from an unusual source—“Saturday Night Live.” No, I’m not talking about the Matt Damon sketch when Damon played Brett. Rather, it was a sketch where Adam Driver, playing me in the 1980s, goes to a crazy party where people skinny dip, do drugs, and hook up. At different points the picture freezes to reveal what became of these people. Several of them, in fact some of the most indulgent partiers, had futures as anchors in the liberal media. In other words, they became shadow-projecting hypocrites.

Especially funny in retrospect is how the media went after The Unknown Hoya, an underground newspaper I helped run at Georgetown Prep. Ian Shapira described The Unknown Hoya in the Washington Post:

The Unknown Hoya, an underground newspaper at Georgetown Preparatory School in the early 1980s, prided itself on its coverage of the crude. One issue featured a photo of a student vomiting into a toilet and an article laced with slurs against girls at the nearby Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md. The same issue also pitched a new school song that included a joke about rape and paeans to kegs of beer. Another issue reportedly carried photos of a bachelor party the seniors threw for a teacher that featured a stripper.

Aside from the charge that we joked about rape, which is false, the dark picture Shipira tries to paint really depicts a fairly normal example adolescent boys wrestling with their shadows. As Robert Bly argued in his A Little Book about the Human Shadow, it is essential that boys encounter and deal with their shadows in order to achieve any kind of spiritual maturity and wisdom. Without this process, they become people like Jim Acosta—all surface, no soul.

In 2018, CNN aired an exposé about some short videos I had directed. My work had been good enough to be used by an American Idol contestant, and was even complemented by Alec Baldwin. (I might not want that endorsement now.) What did CNN focus on? The idea that I liked to shoot “fresh-faced and buxom young women.” Yes, I like pretty and buxom women. I probably need to be sent to a reeducation camp.

In 2018 I had a friend compare my situation to Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. I had been minding my own business when this Ring of Power fell into my lap. In my case, the ring was knowledge about Brett Kavanaugh.

The thing is, there was no secret knowledge. It was all projection by opposition researchers like Avenatti. My situation was not Tolkien, it was A Wizard of Earthsea, the science fiction novel by Ursula K. LeGuin that tells the story of the young wizard Ged. He is focused on learning “to gain power” with his magic (like so many of us as adolescent boys), so much so that he casts a spell to summon the dead. It unleashes a shadow.

As he first reads about the spell, Ged “saw that something was crouching beside the closed door, a shapeless blot of shadow darker than the darkness.” The master wizard Ogion then enters, dispelling what he later calls only “the shadow of a shadow.” Orion then questions young Ged: “Have you never thought how danger must surround power as shadow does light?”

Ged travels to an island called Roke—on a ship named Shadow—but his refusal to integrate his own shadow leads to a terrible eruption. As Jung observed, “the less [the shadow] is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.” Despite being warned by a new instructor, The Master Hand, that “[t]he world is in balance,” Ged argues that “surely a wizard . . . was powerful enough to do what he pleased, and balance the world as seemed best to him, and drive back darkness with his own light.” Ged uses a spell to summon a spirit from the dead, but the spell unleashes something else, described by Le Guin as a shadow “the size of a young child [with] no head or face.” The shadow attacks Ged, who barely survives.

Ged spends the rest of the A Wizard of Earthsea learning to integrate his shadow. Eventually, he recognizes it as part of himself. Near the end of the story, Ged sees his shadow in a corner of the deck on his boat. He is no longer afraid. He accepts that he is encountering a part of himself.

News of the Times;
A co-worker asked me, “Could you be any more annoying?”

So the next day I wore tap shoes to work.


People who cheat on their taxes disgust me.

This is not the kind of world I want to raise my 23 dependents in.


Harley Davidson announced it is closing a major production plant due to declining sales.

Here are the main reasons given why Millennials don't ride motorcycles:

1. Can't get their phone to their ear with a helmet on.

2. They don't get a trophy and a recognition plaque just for buying one.

3. Don't have enough muscle to hold the bike up when stopped.

4. Motorcycles lack air conditioning.

5. They can't afford one because they spent 12 years in college trying to get educated.

6. Fresh air allergies.

7. The handle bars have buttons and levers and cannot be controlled by touch-screen.

8. You have to shift manually and use something called a clutch.

9. It's too hard to take selfies while riding.

10. They don't come with training wheels like their bicycles did.

11. Their nose rings interfere with the face shield.

12. When they stop, a light breeze might blow exhaust in their face.

13. It could rain on them and expose them to non-soft water.

14. They might scare their therapy dog, and then the dog would need therapy.


A new study says that fear is contagious.

I was afraid of that.


Why didn't the sun go to college?

Because it already has a million degrees.

Quote of the Times;
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P.J. O’Rourke

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Shaping the Perfect Subjects by Pedro Gonzalez

The managerial class wants to replace America’s core demographic with one it can more easily control.

In 2005, Professor Nicholas Shackel analyzed a series of deceptive rhetorical maneuvers used to proselytize failed post-modern ideas. Among these, he identified the “motte-and-bailey doctrine,” which takes its name from a medieval castle-defense system: peasants would flee from an indefensible courtyard area—a bailey—up into a fortified tower—the motte—during an attack.

An individual is guilty of the motte-and-bailey in a debate when he conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easily defensible (motte) and the other controversial and untenable (bailey). The debater advances the second, far more radical position until it comes under attack, at which point he retreats to a defense of the motte by insisting that this was his claim all along, effectively reframing the bailey as a straw man invented by his opponent. If this move is successful, the controversial—and real—position goes unassailed while the critic appears unreasonable.

The most consequential example of motte-and-bailey tactics in our time is the debate over the Great Replacement, i.e., the racial and cultural dispossession of America’s historic, European-descended stock. The dominant powers in the United States endorse and actively hasten this dispossession, while simultaneously denying its existence altogether.

That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is

Calls for the political, cultural, and physical marginalization, replacement, and even death of white people have become mainstream in the United States and elsewhere in the West. But when advocates of the Great Replacement are confronted with criticism, they retreat to the motte, cloaking their real positions behind the rhetorical walls of “diversity and inclusion” language, which, they insist, is merely metaphorical and harmless. In what Michael Anton has coined the “celebration parallax,” radicals alternatively insist to their critics that they do not aspire to the extreme goals they are accused of, then strategically advance and celebrate those goals among their champions, who deploy innocuous lines about “equity” and “diversity” when challenged. This pattern is displayed by or receives the support of corporate, political, media, and academic elites.

In an article called “When Is It OK to Kill Whites?” Tommy Curry, a black associate professor specializing in critical race theory at Texas A&M University, declared that “in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die.” That conclusion follows logically from Curry’s diagnosis of the white race’s condition. In a YouTube interview, he said that history shows Whites are irreparably bigoted, and therefore attempting to reason with them is futile. But when these anti-white remarks were reported in The American Conservative, Curry complained that it was all taken out of context and that “white supremacists” had consequently threatened his life. He said that criticism of his statements about killing and marginalizing incurably malicious Whites only “demonstrates the very real danger of anti-Black racism for Black people in universities.” Curry’s department colleagues wrote an op-ed defending his assigned role “to teach and research in critical race theory, an area where he is an acknowledged expert,” calling on Texas A&M to unequivocally defend him.

At Yale, an academic named Aruna Khilanani fantasized to students about joyfully shooting white people in the head during a lecture where she also bemoaned the futility of reasoning with Whites. Like Curry, she said it was all just a “metaphor to evoke emotion” after her comments sparked public outrage. Most recently, Brittney Cooper, a black professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies at Rutgers, said that white people can’t afford to have children and “kind of deserve it.”

“I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate,” Cooper said. “You know, their thinking is so murky and spiritually bankrupt about power that they…they fear this really existentially letting go of power because they cannot imagine another way to be,” she added. Cooper concluded that the ideal solution would be to “take these motherf**kers out,” before insisting that she doesn’t advocate violence. The discussion, “Unpacking the Attacks on Critical Race Theory,” was hosted by the Root Institute in partnership with Target and Fidelity Investments, one of the largest asset managers in the world. That’s not at all surprising; State Street Global Advisors, another one of the world’s largest investment firms, now requires leaders to ask permission before hiring white men as part of a “diversity” initiative.

The most consistent and remarkable feature of the Great Replacement is that its advocates simultaneously deny, cheer, and conceal their true positions. On June 24, 2018, Charles Blow, a black New York Times columnist, reported contentedly that Whites “have been the majority of people considered United States citizens since this country was founded, but that period is rapidly drawing to a close.” Blow would denounce the Great Replacement in April 2021 as a “racist, anti-Semitic, patriarchal and conspiratorial ‘white replacement theory,’” only to celebrate “the shrinking of the white population and the explosion of the nonwhite” evinced by census data in August 2021. Blow has even called for a “reverse Great Migration” to the south for the express purpose of replacing Whites.

In an article titled, “We Can Replace Them,” Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote that “America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.” Roger Cohen followed up with a similar argument in the Times in “Trump’s Last Stand for White America” on the eve of the 2020 election. He opened by quoting demonstrators at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville who reportedly chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” Goldberg named her piece from the previous year as a play on that chant. It was designed to provoke and conflate opponents of her position with extremists, essentially creating a trap where to disagree is to commit an act of bigotry.

Occasionally, the mask comes off entirely, as illustrated in a tweet by Morgan J. Freeman. “Why can’t Republicans just accept that the ‘whiteness’ they so very cherish will be bred out of the human race?” he wrote. Freeman is a self-described “human rights and racial justice advocate,” and yet here he essentially celebrated the United Nations’ textbook definition of genocide: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Not a Bug but a Feature

It is hard to name all the ways local, state, and federal governments sanction racial discrimination that disadvantages and displaces Whites. In grants, subsidies, contracts, and employment, the establishment regularly incorporates racial preferences, quotas, and agendas. That Whites are excluded from them, punished for failing to comply with them, and disadvantaged in opportunities by them makes these policies of de facto discrimination.

Even after the Afghanistan catastrophe, the Pentagon’s priority is making the armed forces less white. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that the military must increase opportunity and improve advancement for black service members, including among Air Force pilots and in the most senior ranks. Bishop Garrison, the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense on Human Capital and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion issues, recently pushed critical race theory on a panel at the Center for a New American Security. “Diversity” must inform every aspect of the military’s recruiting, promotion, operations, and policy implementation process, Garrison told CNAS, which has received funding from every major defense contractor, Wall Street’s biggest banks, several foreign governments, and George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation.

In 94%-white Vermont, Governor Phill Scott recently appointed the state’s first executive director of racial equity, a black woman named Xusana Davis. According to the governor’s press release, she “will work with state government agencies and departments to identify and address systemic racial disparities and support the state’s efforts to expand and bring diversity to Vermont’s overall population.” Last year, Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram Live that “southern states are not red states, they are suppressed states.” The New York termagant pointed to “multi-racial” and “multi-cultural” grassroots mobilization in Georgia that led to Democrats taking control of the Senate as proof. In other words, states are not truly free and democratic and, therefore, politically legitimate unless they are “diverse” or are committed to “diversity.”

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act effectively legalized discrimination on a national level through what has essentially been affirmative action for non-European immigration. The same people who inanely compare the framers to illegal aliens, insist there is no difference between European and non-European immigration, and dismiss the implications of America’s radical, rapid demographic transformation, occasionally cop to believing that race really does matter when it comes to immigration: “The people who moved here after the 1965 act made the United States a truly multicultural nation,” wrote Tom Gjelten in an NPR article entitled “Influx Of Non-European Immigrants Defines America Today.” Will we ever see such advocacy efforts on behalf of Whites when they are reduced to a minority nationally, as they already have been in California? To ask the question is to invite ridicule from the diversity commissars, who simultaneously deny and champion these demographic realities that carry the imprimatur of the regime.

Led by Ocasio-Cortez, 34 Democrats sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last year that characterized policies enabling mass immigration as racial justice. That approach appears to be informing the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing immigration crisis. “Under cover of darkness, every night the federal government is transporting illegal migrants as fast as it can away from the border on secret charter flights into unsuspecting communities around the country,” the New York Post reported on Jan. 26. “Officials have lied and obstructed the few journalists who have tried to reveal the truth.” On February 9, journalist Spencer Brown noted that under Biden, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services removed from its mission statement mention of “lawful immigration,” “protecting Americans,” or “securing the homeland.” USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou said the new statement “reflects the inclusive character of both our country and this agency” and “America’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility today and for generations to come.”

And though they regularly put on a show blasting Democrat’s immigration policies, Republicans more or less agree with mass immigration: they just want it to happen “legally.” Led by Florida Republican Representative Maria Salazar, six House Republicans introduced legislation on February 8 to provide amnesty for 11 to 22 million illegal aliens. Another set of Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Rick Scott (R-FL), are also in talks with Democrats about a separate amnesty proposal. The last time the GOP sold the public a compromise of amnesty in exchange for security was President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bill utterly failed in a saner and more functional America than today’s, and its amnesty provision triggered what the New York Times condemned as “one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government.” Any such “compromise” today would have similar or worse results.

All this is to say that the degree to which the governing bodies of the United States and other Western countries are actively involved in vilifying and replacing the very people who constitute their core demographic is unprecedented in human history. For all its evils, China does not actively try to humiliate, shame, and dispossess the Han people. Thus, a better question than how the Great Replacement works is why? The best model for approaching this problem is through the classical theory of elites.

Managerial Oversight

Regardless of whether a society formally considers itself a republic or a democracy, it is organized minorities—alternatively referred to as “elites” or a “ruling class”—that have a hold over what is known as “social forces,” and thus real power. For elites theorist Gaetano Mosca, social forces can be anything from an ideology to natural resources or a technology which becomes vital to the retention and exercise of power at a given time and place in history. Land in one epoch, semiconductors in another; paganism in one, and Christianity in the next: The organized groups with control over social forces, along with their allies, generally become a society’s elites or ruling class.

In elite theory, control over the state—the formal political apparatus—is only one means of power and control. Other bases include the economy and culture: the “instruments of production and exchange,” and the instruments of information and values. Elites in different sectors do compete, but they ultimately have more in common with one another than the groups, ideas, and agendas that they are fundamentally united in excluding and marginalizing. The modern or “managerial elites,” as political theorist James Burnham named them, who emerged from the ashes of the 20th century, are also distinct from previous elites in major ways. Burnham’s disciple, the late Chronicles columnist Sam Francis, explains:

Unlike earlier elites such as the English gentry, Boston brahmins, or local and regional elites in 19th-century America, the [ruling class] does not depend on intermarriage or inheritance, despite its members’ cohabitation and eventual intermarriage and their efforts to set their offspring up in advantageous positions. Indeed, the [ruling class] doesn’t even rely on the family, which is why it tends to scorn family and kinship bonds of all kinds.

Rather, Francis wrote, the ruling class “depends on its proficiency in managerial and technical skills…and their applications to organized political, economic, and cultural affairs.” Instead of kinship bonds, its power derives from the dependence of the modern economy, culture, government, and politics on the skills that are the domain of the professional-managerial class. These skills are critical to the operation of public bureaucracies, financial institutions, foundations, mass media, mass labor unions, political parties, and educational institutions that form the organs and nerve centers of mass democracy. “Proficiency in these skills cannot be acquired or transmitted through kinship but only by ‘merit,’” Francis added, “which presupposes not only intellectual abilities but also various personality traits that enable the ‘meritorious’ to work and play well with others in immense bureaucratized organizations where following established routines and adhering to established organizational norms of thought and behavior are the minimal requirements for survival and advancement.”

The nature of the managerial elite’s power renders dependence on family connections, traditional religion, morals, manners, and all forms of particularism not only obsolete but into obstacles to its own interests. “Such institutions,” wrote Francis, “do not recognize managerial proficiency and personalities as the only valuable characteristics of an elite, and they permit the competition of alternative elites that could rival” the ruling class. But every elite needs an ideology or “political formula” that expresses and justifies its interests while discrediting and pathologizing those of other groups and the institutions that support them. In our time, that formula is not “wokeism,” but simply liberalism, which has long united advocates of “multiculturalism” and corporate interests with political elites. Journalist David Rieff wrote in 1993:

The reality is that no serious player in the business world has anything but the most vestigial or sentimental interest in Western civilization, as it is roughly understood by campus radicals and conservatives alike. What each side’s argument fails to take into account is that capitalism is the bull in the china shop of human history. The market economy, now global in scale, is by its nature corrosive of all established hierarchies and certainties, up to and including—in a world now more than 50 percent non-white and in which the most promising markets lie in Asia—white racism and male domination. If any group has embraced the rallying cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go,” it is the world business elite.

These days, managerial liberalism presumes to include as “white racism” the desire of Whites to not be reduced to minorities in their own countries.

“The world has moved on,” Rieff adds: “capital and labor are mobile; and with each passing year national borders, not to speak of national identities, become less relevant to consciousness or to commerce.” Moreover, he accurately notes that “diversity” necessarily involves the destruction of particularity and standards—which is perfectly consistent with corporate interests. “For if all art is deemed as good as all other art, and, for that matter,” he writes, “if the point of art is not greatness but the production of works of art that reflect the culture and aspirations of various ethnic, sexual, or racial subgroups within a society, then one is in a position to increase supply almost at will in order to meet increases in demand.”

The transformation of nations into what seem to be open-air shopping complexes with militaries is lauded by the more libertarian-minded as a positive good. However, these boosters omit the connection between immigration and the growth of government in the West. More honest libertarians like Murray Rothbard have observed that the “welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance.” They, in turn, are protected by and provide the justification for ever-expanding “anti-discrimination” rules and regulations enforced by the state. Similarly, an analysis by left-wing CUNY Queens College Professor Francesc Ortega found “that political support for redistribution will remain strong in the US and in other high-immigration countries, provided that immigrants and their children can continue to access citizenship (voting rights) within a reasonably short period of time.” Conversely, Ortega added, “if immigrants do not vote political support for redistribution will erode and may eventually lead to drastic reductions in the size of the welfare state.” Thus, it’s only natural that the incumbent elite undermines the salience of citizenship.

Starting on January 9, 2023, New York City plans to enfranchise legal permanent residents, those with work visas, and “illegal aliens under federal protection, such as asylum seekers and DACA designees,” the New York Post reported. “Foreign citizens could invade the US-Mexico ‘border,’ penetrate America without permission, request asylum, fly to Westchester Airport aboard one of Joe Biden’s free, clandestine, late-night flights, cab it to Manhattan and—after 30 days—cast ballots beside Gotham’s voters who were born in the USA,” according to the Post. Even if it is derailed, the legislation established a dangerous model of what can be accomplished by other localities or even the federal government.

The political formula of managerial liberalism justifies deconstructing and replacing the institutions, ideas, and groups associated with the bygone world outlined by Rieff, which are condemned as discriminatory, particular, and unduly restrictive. Citizenship is a relic of the dark ages, a barrier on the road toward the universal regime.

Importantly, Burnham and Francis did not view political formulas as cases of ruling class cynicism. As Mosca understood, political formulas are not “mere quackeries aptly invented to trick the masses into obedience. Anyone who viewed them in that light would fall into grave error.” This is what the conservative and Marxist critiques tends to miss. “The truth is that they answer a real need in man’s social nature,” Mosca wrote, “and this need, so universally felt, of governing and knowing that one is governed not on the basis of mere material or intellectual force, but on the basis of a moral principle, has beyond any doubt a practical and a real importance.”

In other words, sometimes these formulas can take on lives of their own, and those who abide by them and advance them are not necessarily doing so out of calculated interest or fraud—though some certainly do—but because they place one on the “right side of history.” Those who have bought into this political formula have also allied themselves with nonWhites. It is true, as many have noted, that some of this has entailed convincing lower-status nonWhites that they have more in common with Raymond McGuire, a black former executive at Citigroup, than they do with Whites in similar strata. However, this ignores real racial tensions, regardless of the basis of their legitimacy, in this country upon which elites have amassed fortunes and empires by enlarging and amplifying them. Whites who condemn their “unenlightened” counterparts for rejecting real or performative ethnomasochism are the most repulsive of all.

Replace the Elites

The Great Replacement, then, is a symptom of this political formula, which represents the interests of the elites and their allies who view America’s Whites and the institutions with which they are associated as obstacles to their dominance. The process of replacement is akin to something like changing the “base”—the materials and resources of a society—to alter the “superstructure,” the organization of human life that includes the ideology, norms, and identities of a people.

Although conservatives and some liberals think “American values” are universal, evidence suggests that the survival of many foundational cultural and political assumptions depends at least in part on the continued survival of Whites. Consider that a Pew Research Center survey found 75% of blacks, 72% of Asians, and 65% of Hispanics say gun laws should be stricter compared to only 45% of white people. White evangelical Protestants are the country’s socially conservative core on culture war issues from sex and gender to transgenderism. Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely than white Americans to believe hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%), and policing politically correct speech and behavior only empowers the managerial regime.

To be sure, this is not to say that ideas unique to certain cultures cannot be transmitted regardless of race. Rather it is to insist on the basic truth that a people functions as a carrier of culture. The ideas that arise from a culture have their best chance of survival so long as the people from whom they’ve sprung remain physically and psychically intact. As Thomas West wrote in The Political Theory of the American Founding: “It is unlikely that the American Revolution could have succeeded without something like the Anglo-American people with their distinctive ethnic character, religion, and legal heritage.” Natural rights, West concludes, “are not enough.” Moreover, while immigration is not inherently good or bad, the status quo is only increasing political polarization.

A study published in the academic journal Kyklos noted what seems obvious: “immigration from culturally distant countries…reduces political stability compared to immigration from culturally similar countries.” But another consequence is that the national security apparatus grows in anticipation of instability. Consider that the Department of Homeland Security views “white supremacists”—essentially anyone who disagrees with mass immigration—as “the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.” The Defense Department has also warned about the scarecrow white supremacy. All this, of course, means the regime must spend more and surveil more to quell real or perceived political instability.

More to the point, changing the demographic base of a country will change the character of its social institutions and political structure. This is a rational objective for the “coalition of the ascendant” and their elite allies; it only speaks to their cowardice and duplicity that they cannot always admit to their goals. The Great Replacement is not in itself a political philosophy but one major outcome of a governing elite’s political formula. Opposing that formula will require formulating a countervailing movement that expresses and justifies a competing set of beliefs, moral principles, norms, cultural inheritances, and institutions.

A confrontation with the prevailing ruling class will also require explicitly addressing and rejecting anti-white discrimination, because Whites still constitute the largest political base receptive to such a formula. There is no need to mince words here for fear of alienating others: nonWhites and immigrants who do not wish to live in the awful new world that is clawing its way out of the rotting husk of the old will come along as a matter of course.

There are signs everywhere of raw, inchoate energy from which we can begin to derive such a movement. In a video leaked on January 28, border patrol agents were seen criticizing Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz, whom they accused of becoming an irresponsible bureaucrat not even capable of saying the phrase “illegal alien” out of political correctness. “For evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” an unidentified agent said. “Good men are doing nothing. You’re allowing illegal aliens to be dropped off in communities,” the agent added. According to journalist Ali Bradley, border agents turned their backs on Secretary Mayorkas as he toured the border two days before, and the Washington Examiner reported that there had been a “heated exchange.”

That energy is also manifesting in parents militating against critical race and gender curriculum in schools. Critical race theory, after all, justifies the Great Replacement and the regime it serves: the widespread and organic resistance to it suggests that the American populace instinctively understands and opposes what the ruling class is doing. The situation is bleak but not hopeless, and the question is not whether our enemies are too strong. It is whether we will find the discipline to avoid distraction and co-optation, and retain the determination to judge, condemn, and disempower the managerial regime.

News of the Times;
When making a sex tape, be sure to play Disney music in the background.

That way, if it leaks to the public, Disney attorneys will make sure it's taken down.


My son has a BA and an MA from college.

But his PA still supports him.


After carefully listening to feedback from a growing chorus of three of their customers, Nike is making some long-awaited improvements to their 2022 women's swimwear line. Nike's new "Performance Series" of one-piece competitive women's swimsuits will feature extra room in the crotch for male genitalia.

"We suddenly realized we weren't serving a very important segment of women competitors—those with male genitals," said Nike VP of Diversity and Inclusion Xandryx Bithrannamynx. "Now, women of all shapes and sizes will be able to compete in their favorite swim sports!"

Several product designers at NIKE questioned the decision, as the new swimsuits now fit much too loosely on 99.97% of female swimmers. Those product designers were immediately condemned as transphobes and fired—after which they were doxxed, removed from social media, frozen out of their bank accounts, condemned publically by President Biden, and beat up by a 327-pound trans woman named "Lila" before being dumped on the street to fend for themselves.

Nike is proudly reporting a huge increase in athletic performance from the new design, as most women swimmers who wear it beat their competitors by at least 48 seconds.


Why do we call the aliens creating the pyramids a conspiracy theory?

It's obviously a pyramid scheme.


If I'm counting right, it's been "one of those days" for three years now.

Quote of the Times;
The CDC just quietly lowered the standards for speech in early childhood development. Now children should know 50 words at 30mo rather than 24mo. Instead of highlighting the harmful effects masks & lockdowns have had on children, the CDC just lowered the bar for milestones. - @BowTiedRanger

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Storm Clouds by

If you are over a certain age, something you will remember is that the economy used to be a central part of the daily news feed. People talked about the economy because it was always in the mass media. Of course, you had lots of news about finance, especially the stock market. This dovetailed with the stories about the federal budget and the resulting deficits. People used to talk about the federal debt because it was a number that was easy to conceptualize.

All of this has been pushed aside in favor of other topics now. Look at the front page of the New York Times on any day and the one thing you are not going to see is news about the debt or even the economy. Instead it is foreign affairs or perhaps a long story on the fight against Trumpism. The Washington Post is pretty much just a copy and paste operation, relying on press releases from government agencies. It is as if the economy and related topics no longer exist.

One reason people are not talking about the economy over lunch is the mass media has been told to drop it. The real power of corporate media is the power to ignore, which is what they have done with economics. When was the last time the New York Times did a big story on the finances of the government? There was a time when this was a stock feature. People used to know the size of the federal debt because it was a number that was made meaningful by the media.

Another reason econ-talk has moved to the fringes of the public debate is the people in charge launched a culture war against the people back in the Bush years. That is when the great shift in media focus started. Bush became Hitler and the Left reorganized itself around the great crusade against fascism. This academic psychosis started to spill into the retail politics of the Left. By fascism they mean anything and anyone that opposes the grab bag of incoherent beliefs now called the Left.

The great leaving alone of the economy was also made possible by the fact that the system seemed to be on autopilot. The mortgage meltdown of 2008 did not result in bread lines or mass unemployment. The accounting scandals from the prior decade had no impact on daily life. We have had several market crashes over the last twenty years and no traders have leaped from their office windows. Like war, the gyrations of the economy have been “made for television” events.

The truth is the economy is something people care about and it is something they can know about without the media. If you are a Dirt Person, you have been watching your food bill tick up over the last year or so. You have chatted about this with people at work and with friends at parties. Food inflation is becoming a feature of life. Now gas prices are starting to creep into the conversation. The solons in the mass media may not notice it, but everyone else sees it when they gas up.

The last time inflation was a thing, Reagan was going around the country while running for president, saying, “Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man.” This sounds way over the top, but it resonated with people because at one level he was right. Crime is about social trust and the crime of inflation robs the people of their trust in the basic functioning of society. Inflation puts everything about economic life up for grabs.

Compounding things now is the fact that the core demographic responsible for there being an economy has lost all trust in the government. The inflation numbers recently posted were met with scornful laughs. Everyone knows they are under-gunning the inflation numbers, because these are people who have lied about everything for the last decade or more. The same people who wear ceremonial face gear and lie about the Covid problem are now reporting seven percent inflation. Right.

This is why inflation should be the number one topic on people’s minds as we proceed through the long dark winter Biden has inflicted on us. Even the fake numbers the government released say that something must be done. The Fed has committed to tightening the money supply starting in March. History makes clear this will result in a recession and an uptick in unemployment. Put another way, the bad news on the economy is just getting started.

How will the public respond to the first real recession in decades? How will they respond to the rambling about it by a geriatric old fool who can barely put two sentences together? How will Americans respond to the stream of managerial sociopaths that will be sent out to insult our intelligence? How will the media respond? They have been the Greek chorus for the system for so long, are they even capable of dealing with a practical issue at this point?

This long vacation from reality that our ruling class has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War is about to end. They can stick to whatever theories they remember from their grad-school seminar on diversity and equity but the reality of the human condition has not changed. The ruling class of any society is responsible for the general welfare of the people in that society. When they fail, they are held accountable. This is an immutable law of human organization that never goes away.

This is why the situation in Canada bears watching. Trudeau is a simpleton who has no business being in charge of anything. Contrary to the old chestnuts about democracy, he is not the ruler the people deserve. He reflects the competence of the ruling class that installed him in office. The people who thought this feckless pansy was right for the job are so far proving to be incapable of managing this trucker crisis. They have made Canada the first English speaking dictatorship.

The American people are far more docile and subservient than Canadians, but until a few weeks ago people assumed the Canadians were a beaten people. It turns out that there is still some life left in Canadians, which suggests there may be a flicker of life left in Americans as well. Put enough pressure on people and they will find the courage to rebel against their masters. Inflation, recession and widescale unrest is the sort of pressure Americans may need to find their spine again.

The holiday from reality is over and we are about to enter into a period in which serious topics with real meaning return to the fore. The reckless sissies and addle minded old fools who have been playing make believe for the last few decades will now have to face a real crisis. Similarly, a lethargic and prostrate people will now have to remember how to stand up for themselves again. It will not be long before the last few years of the culture war seem like a golden age of tranquility.

News of the Times;
I asked my wife to dress up as a nurse tonight to fulfill my fantasy.

That we have health insurance.


How many politicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

It depends on how many it took under the previous government.



I don't know about you, but I've thought about running away as an adult way more than I ever did as a kid.

Dr. Oz says that rubbing coffee grounds on your cellulite makes it go away, at least that's what I explained to the crew at Starbucks, they still called the cops.

Hey girl, unless he wears a diaper, you can't change him.

Tact is for people who aren't witty enough to be sarcastic.

Barbie sure has a lot of nice things for a woman whose knees don't bend.

Tomorrow isn't promised, cuss them out today.

Be safe on the road out there, I just slid into the liquor store again.

When you get a call from an unknown number, whisper, "It's done. But there's blood everywhere."

Imagine a blonde, sitting in a bar, wondering why she only has three sisters when her brother has four.

Laughing at your mistakes can lengthen your life, laughing at your wife's can shorten it.


I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching.

Switching my car into reverse and speeding away!


Why do Italians always have to pay so much for car insurance?

Because it can't drive a car without making it all denty.

Quote of the Times;
The entire membership of BLM and antifa combined is 0.0003% of the population of this country, less than a hundred thousand. - Swartz

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
A Partial List of the Myriad Abuses That Facemasks Inflict on Our Children by Aaron Hertzberg

I had not originally intended to write a follow up article to detail the harms masks do to kids in a similar fashion to the prior article Facemasks Are Not an ‘Inconvenience’, Facemasks Are Not Trivial, because I thought that the subject had been addressed by plenty of other people, many of whom are credentialed psychologists or psychiatrists (with real expertise). However, I received a ton of feedback by a variety of people requesting an article about the harms of masking to children in the same style, so here goes.

I’m going to skip an intro, as pretty much everyone is well versed in the foundational morality that children are uniquely vulnerable and dependent upon adults, especially their parents, and that we therefore have a unique moral responsibility towards children. The (formerly?) panoptically shared intuitive repugnance of child abuse is a testament to this.

Some Basic Child Psychology:

So here are a few basic bullet points about children, some of which might seem a bit counterintuitive or at least not the type of thing you would see or hear frequently:

• Kids, especially younger kids who are untainted by the messiness of life, are like little human lie detectors, and even though they usually lack the comprehension or sophistication to articulate it even to themselves, they absolutely pick up when something untoward is going on.
• Kids when confronted by a unavoidable contradiction or dissonance will typically resolve it by internalizing that they are to blame in some way.
• Kids assume that however they experience life (especially in their initial formative years when they first start to build a repertoire of detailed memories) is representative of how life is “supposed to be”.
• Kids are not resilient in the sense that they can shake off considerable emotional trauma or abuse
• Kids are very resilient in the sense that they can internalize emotional distress and trauma as “normal”, and suppress their natural instincts and feelings that impede functioning “normally” in this unnatural emotional state.
• Good parenting is critical and can blunt the negative impacts tremendously. Conversely, bad parenting can be just as powerful as a damaging force.

A few disclaimers first:

• This is listing things that generally tend to be true about kids, particularly in the context of mask mandates at schools, in varying degrees, not things that are 100% true for 100% of children in 100% of situations. In other words, you can feel something a little or a lot, or not at all – there’s a wide range, and it varies. Don’t read the definitive language as necessarily literal.
• This list is not comprehensive.
• Most of the things on this list are interconnected and can cause or amplify each other (and thus the categorization is definitely “flexible”).
• The short descriptions were written to provide a basic idea of some of the negative impact of the specific thing being highlighted. Different people experience the same things differently. The goal here is mostly to provide a platform or starting point to figure out the rest, like a small push to give some momentum in the right direction.
• I definitely missed lots of relevant material.

So without further ado, here is a partial list of some very significant emotional harms inflicted on children by facemasks:

Relevant from the prior article:

A Sense of Helplessness

Being at the mercy of the arbitrary and capricious whims of others makes you feel a sense of helplessness, which is extremely stressful and grueling, and can eventually break a person mentally and emotionally.

Deprives / Ruins Human Interactions

The quality and nature of social interactions is greatly reduced. Every interaction behind masks is fundamentally different. Interacting in this way can feel sad, despondent, isolating, cold, and/or cruel, among other things. This is uniquely devastating to children who in addition to the intrinsic emotional distress of this also have their social/intellectual/mental development compromised as a result.

The Stress of Difficulty Communicating

The frustration that comes from difficulty communicating is underappreciated, and tends to leave people feeling annoyed, frustrated and stressed. Children who due to their lack of knowledge and sophistication generally have a far greater need for functional and efficient communication are again uniquely harmed by this because it is especially frustrating to children if they feel that they cannot learn and are ‘stuck’, and they can easily decide that they have little or no hope of learning and just give up on trying more or less.

Over Time Changes Your Personality

Facemasks are a radical and unnatural impingement on normal physical, mental and emotional functioning. Over time, this can change your personality – such as making you less social, less outgoing, more suspicious, decreased tendency or desire to be kind and so on.

Turns Other People Into Abusive Tyrants

This is meant to capture the phenomenon of a subset of people who have turned into cruel and vicious individuals, and abuse people whom they have power over. Exhibit A: Teachers (some of them) and Karens who incoherently screech at the sight of an unmasked child anywhere on the horizon.

Feeling That Other People Matter While I Don’t

This is a distinct distress in addition to the lack of fairness – that “I don’t matter”; this is amplified considerably when “other people matter”. This is what people who are systematically disregarded tend to feel, and it is very painful. Definitely not the sort of lesson you want your kids getting.

The Distress of Constant Harassment

Mask mandates are a constant intrusion into people’s personal lives that leaves people feeling exasperated – “just leave me alone already” / “just let me live in peace”. It is a basic human need to not be constantly harassed by others. This is true for kids too, albeit in a bit of a different manner, since adults by definition do need to be more involved in kids lives. But the basic idea holds – kids will be very stressed from the “evil mask compliance enforcer teacher” constantly haranguing them to keep their masks on all the way.

Saps the Joy From a Variety of Activities

No elaboration needed.

Living In Perpetual Stress From Social Enforcers

Inevitably, people opposed to mask mandates will not be particularly zealous about following them to a “T”, whether it be letting the mask slide down your face, taking it off for a few minutes here and there, or just munching on a bag of peanuts for 3 hours. There is always a baseline stress of constantly having to be alert for the “mask police”, whether they are actual police or just really annoying Karens, or for kids teachers and administrators (and unfortunately sometimes parents) in addition to vile Karens who scream at kids like unhinged maniacs.

Public Humiliation

The school “mask police” – aka teachers/admins – are often extremely zealous – unhinged, really – a child who simply can’t adhere to the inhumane mask requirements getting dressed down in public is a common occurrence. Public humiliation can be a traumatic experience, especially for little children who can internalize very negative ideas about themselves as a result.

Emotional Abuse

Mask mandates leave many people feeling emotionally abused. This is both from the masking being forced upon people despite all the mental and emotional distress it causes – in other words, abuse – and from the constant manipulation and cruelty that is characteristic of abusers that is part and parcel of the implementation and enforcement of mask mandates, an especially pronounced characteristic when it comes to kids.

Physical Discomfort

The first thing to lay down is that masks are extremely uncomfortable to many people, especially to wear them for 7-8 hours or more each day. This is especially true of children, whose physical anatomy is still growing and more susceptible to being deformed by facemasks (specifically the ear cartilage). Additionally, children are far more likely to get irritation or infections from facemasks due to the inordinately unhygienic proclivities of children to basically be grimy dirt magnets. Everything laid out after this is incorporating the baseline physical discomfort or distress as a given.

There is also a substantial physical discomfort from the added difficulty or straining of routine breathing through facemasks, another harm uniquely pronounced in children, who have less muscle mass and lung capacity and so have to strain more above their natural baseline effort to breathe through masks that are often clogged up with bits of solid detritus and other random yicky stuff that somehow ends up aggregating on children’s facemasks. that further obstructs free airflow.

How a child perceives/relates to themselves:

Sense/feeling that “my feelings don’t matter”

A child being repeatedly forced to do something that causes them significant distress leads to the child internalizing that “my feelings or suffering doesn’t matter”. It is hard to overstate how damaging this is psychologically.

Furthermore, the inevitable forced suppression of a whole range of their own feelings and significant discomfort from everything else on this list itself leads a child to conclude that their feelings don’t matter (or worse, are bad intrinsically), because the type of thing that is hidden away or suppressed at best doesn’t matter enough and at worst is an active “bad” thing that must be suppressed.

Sense/feeling that “I’m intrinsically something dangerous/“bad””

To a kid, the necessity for a mask in the first place is that otherwise he would be a danger to others “just by being there”. Kids – being more simplistic – will make the association that dangerous things = bad things, especially when helped along by abusive or unhinged teachers who explicitly tell (scream?) kids that they are bad. I don’t mean “bad” in the sense of acting in an evil or immoral fashion, that’s the next one; “bad” here is meant in the sense of something undesirable and/or with negative impact.

Internalizing a sense that “I am an intrinsic menace to everyone else” leads to a sense that “I am unworthy (ie unworthy of people’s kindness), a danger to the world, something plain bad.

Sense/feeling that “I’m evil”

A normal child will likely feel very strong urges to do things that mitigate their discomfort from the mask, like taking it off or pulling it below the nose or mouth, folding it up or down partially, etc. They will then be told by a teacher or other adult that they are acting very selfishly, or some such criticism the gist of which is that the child is doing something genuinely “wrong”/”bad” in a moral sense. They also see other kids being given the same criticism. So they will be left internalizing that their natural instincts & legitimate need to take mask off is a manifestation of evilness and/or selfishness.

Children then also become burdened by guilt should they pull their mask down and subsequently get covid and associate the two and wonder if their “moral lapse” got a friend or teacher sick with the ‘deadliest plague ever’ which is in a way the ultimate act of evil that one can do in today’s society.

This is in addition to all of the emotional distresses also impelling kids to limit the mask wearing as much as they can get away with.

A child is liable to feel the internal dissonance of wondering just why they feel so against something that is so important to not hurting everyone, and internalize the “obvious” conclusion that the reason is they are intrinsically ‘incompatible’ with doing the really important good things is that their ‘self’ or essence is intrinsically incompatible, which in this case means ‘evil’.

Sense/feeling that “I’m defective”

For the same reasons just spelled out in the previous one, a child is also liable to internalize that the reason for the dissonance between how he feels, acts, and thinks about masks and the “great and clear necessity as a moral and practical matter” for masks is that they are “defective”, in a similar sense to a manufacturing defect in a product. A child can ‘identify’ this “defect” in multiple areas (and can be quite creative about it too). And yes, a child can think that he is simultaneously a bad thing, evil and defective.

Relate to experiences as something that is intrinsically not a “shared” type of thing

This is a bit tricky to articulate properly. A healthy person naturally ‘shares experiences’, or shares their lives, (in varying degrees obviously) with others. Masks (especially when accompanied by other isolation measures) severely inhibit the development of a child learning the fundamental camaraderie of how to ‘share their world’/be a part of someone else’s, without which they never evolve from living in their own personal universe

Lose (or never develop) a genuine sense that “I’m a human being” and not an animal

This might offend the atheists out there (sorry about that), but a person naturally has an innate sense of their transcendent nature [that derives from being made in the image of G-D]. The implementation of mask policies in schools necessarily involves dehumanizing the children to some extent (and is typically aggravated by zealot teachers or administrators who have been conditioned to look at the children as disease vectors first and human beings second, something which absolutely comes across to the kids). Rule of thumb: People treated like animals will eventually come to think of themselves as animals (albeit with a few intellectual advantages).

General Trauma:

Life is innately a depressing, gloomy and dark existence

Children will eventually internalize an overarching sense of an all-encompassing gloominess or darkness that shades everything they experience and feel (this can be in varying degrees of intensity, encompassing-ness, and so on). This is very subtly manifest (and practically impossible to discern for someone who never experienced both a pervasive gloom and a pervasive brightness about life and so has the contrast to differentiate them as distinct things) but also exerts very powerful damaging effects. In extreme situations this can lead to losing the will to live altogether.

Trapped in a constant state of fear and anxiety

The constant mask-based fearmongering and threats and moral opprobrium has inflicted an unfathomable measure of fear and anxiousness upon children. Masks are the talisman of fear & anxiety (and everything else negative) of the covid pandemic. Anxiety disorders are something that people can relate to. But inflicted upon children, this is much more pernicious and debilitating, because they will internalize it as “how it is supposed to be/feel” and not realize that this is a messed up way of feeling all the time in the way that an adult is (usually) able to realize and understand that being anxiety ridden is not normal, and an adult also has the benefit of a contrast to a time when they were not suffering from perpetual anxiety.

General confusion from being unable to interpret conflicting messaging of life

On the one hand, they’re in school to learn. On the other hand, they have to wear masks that make learning very difficult if not impossible. On the one hand they are encouraged to make friends and socialize. On the other hand they are very strongly and forcefully prohibited from actually socializing. On the one hand if they test positive it’s not their fault. On the other hand if they get covid it’s because they were bad children who didn’t wear their masks the right way.

This sort of perpetual conflicting messaging will leave kids with a profound sense of confusion, and also doubting their own capacity to understand things in general, like their environment, other people, themselves, and everything inbetween.

Public humiliation/scolding

The innumerable and ubiquitous stories of children being shamed and humiliated in public because of mask compliance issues are frankly an abomination to a civilized society.

Violation of the most elementary fairness

Kids are extremely sensitive to a lack of fairness (which is sometimes the reason that (especially little) kids throw tantrums that are enormously disproportionate to the factual grievance they are tantruming about – they feel that something about it wasn’t fair, which is what is really animating the tantrum). Masks for kids is intrinsically absurd, but masks for kids while teachers and adults don’t have to wear them??

Masks are a uniquely potent emotional trauma because of the masking policies association with the suffering inflicted by the masks, and covid more generally

The mask itself is inextricably linked emotionally for children to all of the abuse, stress, distress, suffering, and everything else negative about their lives because of covid. Thus, even being around facemasks without having to personally wear them is going to be inflicting a dull emotional trauma simply due to bringing up all the enormous suffering and negative emotions related to covid. Wearing them makes this a hundred times worse.

Emotional trauma that breaks children leaves permanent emotional scarring that will never fully heal

This doesn’t really need further elaboration, but it’s worth spelling out because it’s powerful in words:

Children that were so thoroughly abused and broken will always be missing a part of them that brings a sense of vibrancy, alive-ness, and energy to one’s personality and experiences that bled out from the emotional wounds of the constant horrific suffering and distress they were put through.

Warped Sense of Reality:

People are an intrinsically negative entity and force within the world

The constant playing up and highlighting to an absurd degree of prominence everyone’s capacity to be a silent killer the moment the mask slips down ends up cementing through the repeated association of such negative characteristics a sense that people are just simply a bad thing to happen to the universe.

Trained to view things through a paradigm of “fear everything”

The constant inculcation of fear and fearmongering is potent conditioning to always view everything as fear-inducing. More succinctly, fear everything, and not just because it’s alleged claimed practical utility, but also as a religious sort of doctrine, that you do “just because”. This is so profoundly unhealthy that it defies words.

Default human condition is cold, loveless, uncaring and cruel

Children assume that however they experience life in their formative years is reflective of how “it’s supposed to be”. If their formative memories are of endless cold, distant, uncaring, loveless cruelty – as at least a very prominent and consistent part of their lives – then they will assume that is how life is supposed to be. (And then people wonder why kids have suicidal ideation…)

Unfettered, natural socializing is unnatural

For the same logic as the previous one. If children’s formative environment is that natural instinctive unfettered socializing is completely forbidden – and then they are prevented from experiencing or engaging in it – they will incorporate this also as “this is how it’s supposed to be”.

Won’t be able to appreciate [what we take for granted as] a person’s “humanity”

Deprived of seeing faces, and from normal social interactions, both of which are absolutely critical to convey the sense of the human-ness of other people, the children will be deprived to the same degree as they are deprived of the normal social cues and interactions through which they associate their sense of self as a human being with the humanity of other people.

Warped notion of what “love” is

This one is really mostly on the parents – if the parents inflict constant suffering and emotional abuse on their kids, then they will associate their instinctive knowledge/experience of their parents love for them with the abuse, and internalize that loving someone includes the abusive part as a standard feature of the love (future spouses, beware…). Literally, they will internalize something along the lines of “love is supposed to hurt (sometimes?)”. I’m being 100% serious. Kids can definitely get a very confused idea of how ‘love’ works and feels.

Profound cynicism about society and life

That will manifest probably at least in part as an assumption that “I’m always being lied to or manipulated”, and “no one ever has my best interests at heart”. Both of which are really damaging emotionally and psychologically.

Relating to Others:

All of the following, when a person lacks them, they are also wounded emotionally, although it is not the sort of distress that manifests as a sharp conscious presence, rather it is a dull background loss of vibrancy and being

Dehumanization of others

Everyone seems to be aware of this one, so I’ll leave it without comment.

Desensitization to the feelings of others

This is being spurred on on two tracks:

The first is the disregard for their own feelings and suffering; the surest way to inculcate in someone that other’s suffering is unimportant is to demonstrate that their own suffering/feelings are worthless, from which they will generalize to everyone else too.

The second is that the children witness the systematic tormenting of their peers and other children around the country (thank you social media), which is a direct lesson to internalize that “yeah, not a big deal”.

What I’m referencing here specifically is the basic sensitivity to caring about the feelings of others – not the silly transient or delusional ones – that enables one’s sense of empathy.

People are unworthy of being treated with human dignity and empathy

Seeing how society treats them collectively, personally, their peers – this will definitely teach children that people aren’t deserving of being treated with basic decency. “Not deserving” is also internalizing in children a perverse sense of seeing people as lacking moral value (above and beyond the baseline dehumanization).

Character development:

Desensitization to human suffering

Yup, this is important. A child forced to suffer will internalize among other wonderful life lessons that suffering isn’t such a terrible thing. And this is especially true when they see their peers also being made to suffer, since this also indicates to them that directly making others suffer is ok (children are far more liable to attribute defectiveness to themselves to explain why they are being made to suffer than they are to others).

Internalize that it’s ok to impose on others without regard for their welfare to make yourself feel better

Children realize that at the end of the day, non of their peers were severely ill or died from covid. They also can see right through that the teachers and adults want the children masked because it makes them feel safer. Which means that it’s acceptable to torment the kids so that you can feel safer and less stressed – a lesson that is very generalizable beyond just covid.

Breaks the natural instinct to be kind

Children absolutely need their basic instincts to be nurtured so that they ‘bloom’. The masks force a degree of isolation and lack of interpersonal connection that removes the primary outlet for a child to act on the instinct to do kind tings to others (this does not mean that kids are perfect little angels who don’t also bite, punch, kick, insult, mock, throw things at, and attack each other in all manner of creative ways). But without an outlet, the natural instinct withers and dies to some extent (or mostly…).

The lack of opportunities to be kind also means that kids don’t get to experience the positive emotions that come from relationships – built on the basis of the give and take between the two people to each other – as well as a genuine sense of fulfillment that comes from doing “good deeds” (not trying to be religious, but that is the idea), something critical to developing a personality that will tend to be civilized and good versus delinquent.

Erodes the natural moral intuition that suffering is something to always try and eliminate

Think of a kid (or anyone really) who while walking down the street sees a dog trapped underneath a piece of wood, and instinctively reacts to seeing the dog in distress to free the dog so as to end its distress. This is the instinct to alleviate suffering, borne by the innate intuition that suffering is a bad thing to exist.

Well, forcing kids to suffer hideously because of the masks – especially endlessly – eventually will break (or completely shatter) this instinctive intuition, as the kids will conclude from their own experience (and from their peers) that intense suffering is actually quite tolerable to witness and not only do nothing about but proactively cause it needlessly and unfairly. (Yes, kids – by now for sure – are for the most part probably aware that in much of the country masks are not required in schools [anymore].)

Conditioned to be non-thinking obedient cultists

Regardless of the theoretical merits that masks might have, the implementation of mask policies is always done in a fashion that quite clearly defies common sense. Children, even though they cannot articulate it, will discern that the adults are not acting logically or rationally but just “acting”. Eventually, the repeated ritual will completely strip down the innate instinct to be inquisitive – one of the most prominent (and frequently annoying) characteristics of kids – and grind it into cultish submission.

Normalizing Lying/Manipulation

In a similar vein, kids have an intuitive astuteness and will pick up on the fact that the masks are being based on general deception, lying, and manipulation. This is despite that they will lack any capacity to even consciously recognize that they are perceiving this tension between being honest and how mask policies are a fundamental perversion of honesty. (Although at a local level, many if not most implementations were done so haphazardly and stupidly that the lack of transparent honesty was readily apparent from that alone.)

Never in human history has a society organized on the basis of the rights and welfare of its citizens inflicted such devastation upon its own people. The stain of the forced masking of children will forever live on as an unparalleled and unequivocal moral abomination. A society that mainstreams institutionalized child abuse is a society that does not deserve to exist.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.