Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
Not a single person asked if I could run fast in my new shoes today.

Being an adult is stupid.


Ricky Gervais, if he had been hosting the Oscars, says he would have said this: "I'd start with 'Hello. I hope this show helps cheer up the ordinary people watching at home. If you're unemployed for example, take some comfort in the fact that even if you had a job, your salary probably wouldn't be as much as the goody bag all the actors have just been given.'"


A young and foolish pilot wanted to sound cool on the aviation frequencies. This was his first time approaching a field during the nighttime.

Instead of making any official requests to the tower he said, "Guess who?"

The controller switched the field lights off and replied, "Guess where?"


Me in heaven:

GOD: You're about to get your wings.

ME: Spicy or Honey Barbecued?

GOD: Get out!


It takes 42 muscles to make a frown.

So you could say, "I'm not in a bad mood, I'm exercising."

Quote of the Times;
Wearing a mask is a public humiliation ritual. - Denninger

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Democrats have a pedo problem by Todd Gregory and Erik Gregory

Progressives have a pedophilia problem. Full stop, as the Barack Obamas of the world might say. From CNN producers to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) station chiefs and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) field agents; from the woke Disney corporation to Democrat donors; from Hollywood to the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA); from Facebook/Meta to the Lincoln Project to America's public school system — the progressive Left has a demonstrated prurient interest in underage children.

This is not guilt by association, innuendo, or conjecture; it is a firmly established fact pattern. And this is not to suggest that no Republicans have ever espoused or committed similar atrocities against children; extremely rare countervailing exceptions like Republican Dennis Hastert (who, unlike Democrats, was actually imprisoned in part for his crimes of child molestation) prove the rule that many Democrats have a strong affinity for pedophilia and the normalization of the same.

Empirically and factually, an overwhelming majority of public figures who are confirmed and aspiring pedophiles (along with pedo-friendly corporations like Disney) are progressive Democrats in terms of political orientation. All of this is hushed up by our progressive media, and thanks to progressive privilege, virtually nobody is ever prosecuted or punished.

Why is it never a national scandal when Democrats routinely prey on young children? Simple — because the progressive media protect Democrats far better than Rome's Praetorian guard ever protected any of the Caesars.

If Jeffrey Epstein's client roster had been chock-full of identifiable Republicans (instead of Democrats from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates to Bill Richardson — we knew nothing!), or if FOX News producers were outed as skeevy pedo perverts, the earsplitting cacophony from the media would be maximally amped with hysterical shrieks of sustained, collective outrage.

Moreover, if the progressive Epstein had instead been a prominent conservative donor and activist, he would've been rightly imprisoned decades ago. Perhaps he would even be alive today rather than conveniently dead.

Instead of truth and exposure, we have media silence. A favorite media tactic is the lie by omission. If a station chief or agent from John Brennan's beloved and woke CIA sexually abuses a two-year-old baby, but CNN producers and the media decide it is not a scandal, then poof, it all goes away. Like the tree falling in the forest with nobody to see or hear it, perhaps it simply never happened at all.

The one time the media did make a national scandal of child molestation was when they saw it as an opportunity to take down the Catholic Church in the wake of the Church's scandals and cover-ups. But even there, the media's motive was strictly to discredit and destroy the Church itself, not to condemn the practice of predatory homosexual pedophilia.

If the mental health "professionals" of the progressive American Psychiatric Association (APA) weren't themselves so deeply mentally and emotionally disturbed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) would do a deep dive on why the denizens of the left seem vastly more predisposed to acts of pedophilia than traditionalists and people on the Right.

Instead, the official position of the APA and most psychiatrists is that conservatives are mentally ill because, well, they're conservative.

Pick a deep blue state at random — say, Oregon. A former longtime mayor of Beaverton, Dennis "Denny" Doyle, was recently charged with possession of child pornography. But that was nothing new in the Beaver state. There was also popular Portland mayor Sam Adams, who relished pederasty with underage boys. Oh, there was also Democrat governor Neil Goldschmidt, who committed statutory rape against a 13-year-old girl and went on sexually abusing her for many years afterwards.

Goldschmidt's victim's life was destroyed, and she died decades later at age 49, with drugs, alcohol, and mental illness as contributing factors.

Unlike Dennis Hastert, none of these progressive figures went to prison for his crimes of molesting children. They all got a free pass. And most voters and politicians living near Oregon's deep blue I-5 corridor between Portland and Eugene didn't (and don't) care.

As long as progressive pedophiles and their institutional cheerleaders and enablers have a (D) next to their name, pedophilia does not necessarily conflict with the values of Democrat voters or progressive Supreme Court appointees like Ketanji Brown Jackson. This is the same political party that always screams without irony that it's for the children.

Democrats, their corporate affiliates, and their voters are likewise indifferent to the widespread sexual trafficking of children near America's porous border with Mexico, even as they wildly celebrate President Brandon's recent endorsement of sex "reassignment surgery" and hormone-blockers for children.

To rephrase a couple modern figures of speech: Democrats gonna Democrat. And yes, that is who they are.

News of the Times;
The Cat in the Hat" turns 65 this year.

He's thinking of working into his 70's to maximize those social security checks.


Heidi Montag is the latest celebrity to try the "Raw Meat and Animal Organs Diet."

I don't know whoever came up with that one, but they probably should have spent a little more time on the name.


MOSCOW - Amid mass arrests on Friday, Russian senior leadership admitted their April Fools prank on Ukraine may have gone too far, but insisted the invasion was “all in good fun.”

“Sadly, we see this a lot,” said Interpol President Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, referring to Interpol’s annual statistics on April Fools pranks. “A group of friends gets excited about pulling a prank together, inevitably take it too far, and end up committing war crimes.”

Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu, who was arrested on charges related to the practical joke, insists that Russia did nothing illegal.

“Everyone has those nights where you intend to just have a couple drinks, but then things get wild and you decide to invade Ukraine. There’s nothing wrong with a little friendly ribbing between neighbors.”

Interpol noted that the bulk of the trouble seemed to stem from the fact that many of the pranksters were Russian teenagers who were "not quite in on the joke."Al-Raisi revealed that when this happens, any charges are typically dropped and the pranksters are allowed to call their moms to come pick them up.


A Northern California man has pled guilty to taking two bear cubs out of a den and trying to raise them at home.

He let authorities know when they became just too much to try and raise.

The broken furniture, sleeping in his bed, porridge everywhere...


A bunch of new rule changes in baseball: both leagues will now use designated hitters, extra-inning games will no longer stick a guy on second base to start each inning and there will be no catchers mask mandate after April 18th

Quote of the Times;
I have a buddy who works for a PMC. They got a brief today. Its a shit show. He said every Israeli arms dealer in the world is in Ukraine buying weapons: Stingers/Javelins/etc. He said Ukrainian commanders are selling and using the money to take their families to Poland. Western countries just rush dumped a bunch of arms there and they are getting bought for pennies on the dollar and shipped out. Zelensky admin is in charge of nothing. He said "Why would he be? He's a CIA puppet".

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Obviously, Inevitably, The White Devil Did It by David Thompson

So, anyway, as you may have heard, at a recent awards ceremony, a black millionaire celebrity slapped another black millionaire celebrity. The root cause, however, has only now been discovered:

This is about a much larger systemic issue rooted in white supremacist culture designed to police the behaviour of Blacks amongst the who’s who in Hollywood and beyond.

It says so here:

Respectability politics suggest that equity and fair treatment require that Black people — both inside and outside of Hollywood — conduct ourselves in a manner deemed acceptable to whites. Furthermore, expressing any emotion other than complacence, apathy, or agreeance directly violates those norms, disqualifying Black people from receiving the same equitable treatment that whites enjoy as a birthright. And sadly, there is a large group of Blacks who have internalized this toxic messaging.

You see, when Mr Will Smith, a black millionaire celebrity, publicly assaults Mr Chris Rock, another black millionaire celebrity, on live television, and is promptly given a prestigious award, for which he is applauded, and is then seen celebrating triumphantly at the award after-party, this is somehow proof of victimhood, of being racially “policed” by “respectability politics” and other works of the White Devil. Mr Smith, we’re told, is “not receiving the same equitable treatment that Whites enjoy as a birthright.”

Readers will note the implication that any black viewers who regard Mr Smith’s behaviour as not entirely optimal are merely parroting views “deemed acceptable to whites,” having somehow “internalized” the “toxic messaging” of “white supremacist culture.” For what it’s worth, I don’t have strong feelings on the incident one way or the other – it all seemed rather farcical – but I doubt my first impulse would be to suggest that black people who disapproved, however much or little, are merely aping whitey and don’t know their own minds. But such is wokeness.

The author of the piece, published in Forbes, is Maia Niguel Hoskin, a “writer, activist, and college professor,” whose areas of supposed expertise include “oppression, difference and mental health,” including “racial battle fatigue,” and who claims, modestly, to “facilitate cultural consciousness.” As a self-styled “speaker of truth,” she is, of course, schooled in “critical race theory.”

And so, Ms Hoskin tells us that she does not condone violence, while insisting that responsibility for violence must be shifted from those who indulge in it, provided they are black, and attributed instead to the insidious, all-pervasive, yet oddly nebulous, power of pallor. The “racist system that was designed to incubate his and so many others’ frustrations.” And which, in ways never quite specified, compels very rich comedians to tell bad jokes, and makes very rich actors slap the people who tell them. This, we’re assured, is “white supremacist culture.”

And the way to be scrupulously “anti-racist” is to erase any agency or expectation of self-possession from people with brown skin.

News of the Times;
The guy who stole my diary died.

My thoughts are with his family.


INTERVIEWER: So, where do you see yourself in five years?

ME: I'd say my biggest weakness is listening.


A minister waited in line to have his car filled with gas just before a long holiday weekend. The attendant worked quickly, but there were many cars ahead of him in front of the service station. Finally, the attendant motioned him toward a vacant pump.

"Reverend," said the young man, "Sorry about the delay. It seems as if everyone waits until the last minute to get ready for a long trip."

The minister chuckled, "Same in my business."


The economy is terrible. At the beginning of the year, the politicians promised things would improve by the last quarter.

Well, I'm down to my last quarter and they haven't improved!


How rare is it for a cow to be struck by lightning?

Medium rare.

Quote of the Times;
"I want ordinary citizens of Western states to hear me too. They are now trying to convince you that all your difficulties are the result of some hostile actions of Russia... the truth is that the problems faced by millions of people in the West are the result of years of actions by the ruling elites in the West." – Putin

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Bright Ages by Michael Davis

Anti-Christian bias leads modern historians of the Middle Ages into some hilarious gaffes.

Around the year 849, a group of Byzantine monks paid a young woman to accuse the Patriarch of Constantinople, Methodius I, of seducing her. His defense ought to be studied by every law student on the planet. At his trial, Methodius lifted his robes, triumphantly exposing himself to the court. They gasped. The Primate’s manhood was shriveled almost beyond recognition.

Methodius explained that, as a young priest, he’d asked St. Peter to save him from lustful urges. St. Peter obliged, and the result was now plain for the whole Empire to see. The Primate was acquitted and eventually canonized. The monks were excommunicated.

No story, in my opinion, better captures the medieval “thing.” The Middle Ages are full of magical, mystical happenings. We all know the bit in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle where dragons appear in England, a portent of the Viking invasion in which “heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter.” Still, Thronies may be disappointed by the dearth of dragons in medieval history. Withered genitalia is more usual.

That’s why we love the Middle Ages. That’s what makes John Julius Norwich’s facts more enchanting than George R. R. Martin’s fiction. It’s so plausible. Even the miracles are a little pedestrian. You hardly notice them at all. It’s as if they were commonplace in medieval Europe. And who knows? Maybe they were.

Whether you believe in miracles or not, one thing is clear. A history of the Middle Ages may be anything but boring. At least I thought so until I read Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry’s new study The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe.

Most of what makes the book so tedious is the book’s political agenda. And to be fair, the authors are upfront about that agenda. They wrote The Bright Ages, they explain, because medievalism is bound up with ultraconservative politics. “Sometimes symbols of the Middle Ages are used approvingly by the far right,” they write, “emblazoned on shields in Virginia, fluttering on flags as the U.S. Capitol is stormed, or peppered across the screed of a mass murderer in New Zealand.”

The only way to cure these fifteen or twenty teenage boys of their delusion is to declare an all-out war on history. The authors state their opposition to “whiteness,” which they call “a modern idea with medieval roots.” The myth of whiteness is also used to prop up “the fiction of Europe and the invented concept of Western civilization.” In other words, white supremacism is wrong because white people haven’t done anything to be proud of. Actually, white people don’t even exist. Feel stupid yet, bigot?

Academics love to play these little word games. Meanwhile, the rest of us know that it’s okay to be proud of the achievements of one’s ancestors. Nobody really thinks I’m racist because I, Michael Warren Davis, have more of an affinity for the British Isles than I do for the Andean Mountains or the Great Steppe. But Gabriele and Perry make a truly heroic effort to defend their point. The authors say of these white supremacists, “They looked into both the medieval and classical European past and imagined they found white faces, like theirs, looking back at them. They were wrong about all of this.”

You’ll have to take my word for it, but there’s no context for this remark. The authors seem to be arguing that whiteness doesn’t exist because 10th century Europe was actually full of black people. If so, that would certainly take the wind out of the alt-right’s sails, though I’d really like to see their proof.

Over and over, this obsession with “debunking white nationalist myths” leads them to ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. For instance, they recall how Pope Gregory the Great decided to launch his mission to England. According to the Venerable Bede, Gregory was strolling through the Roman slave markets when he saw a group of boys with fair skin and blonde hair being sold as chattel. He was shocked to learn that the boys were not Christians and immediately resolved to send missionaries to their homeland. Gabriele and Perry omit the part of the story where Gregory asks what their people are called: Angles. Gregory says the name is fitting since they’re as beautiful as angels. (You see what he did there.) Gregory sends a monk named Augustine to establish a new mission in England.

The authors declare: “This story is apocryphal, deeply unlikely to be true.” Well, no. It’s actually likely, even deeply likely, to be true. We know that English slaves were sold in Rome during Gregory’s reign. In fact, it’s unlikely that a pope would have encountered the Angles in any other way. As for the pun, Gregory probably wasn’t the first person to compare small children to angels and he certainly wasn’t the last.

Why, then, do the authors conclude that this story is deeply unlikely to be true? Why, because it may encourage racists, of course. According to the authors, the story of Gregory and the Angles is “a founding myth for white supremacist ideas about the past.” Well, let’s say this about that: First of all, you’re not going to find the Venerable Bede quoted in The Daily Stormer. Secondly, it isn’t a myth. It’s not even “apocryphal,” as Gabriele and Perry claim. Bede was a historian who was only one generation removed from Gregory I. He was surrounded by men who had known the missionary Augustine and perhaps even Gregory himself.

There’s no reason to doubt this story, unless you assume that Christians are pathological liars. And, indeed, Gabriele and Perry declare that in studying medieval history, “we must surely move beyond the writings of Church Fathers and their theological goals.” That’s not history. It’s sectarianism.

You’ll hardly be surprised to find that this bias doesn’t extend to Islam. Predictably, the authors are as mindlessly pro-Muslim as they are anti-Christian. But at least here the authors are subtle. For instance, they explain that “dhimmis (Arabic for non-Muslims living under Muslim rule) possessed specific rights, protections, and obligations.” That word “obligations” bears the brunt of the load.

Dhimmis were given the freedom to worship, but they had to do so virtually in secret. They were forced to pay an exorbitant tax rate—much higher than that paid by Muslims. They needed permission from Muslim authorities to repair their churches and synagogues, and were forbidden from building new ones. Their houses had to be smaller than Muslims’ houses, and they were forbidden from marrying Muslim women. They were forced to wear certain clothes, so as never to be confused with Muslims. They were forbidden from riding horses, camels, and sometimes even mules. Criticizing Islam or trying to convert Muslims was a capital offense. In court, the word of a dhimmi was worth less than that of a Muslim man.

It’s impossible that two men with PhDs in Medieval History could be ignorant of all this. Their decision to downplay dhimmitude is not only intentional but ideological. Seriously, imagine if a conservative historian said, “For black South Africans, apartheid brought specific rights, protections, and obligations.” We would call that dishonest and offensive. Yet, because Christians and Jews were the victims of dhimmitude, nobody really cares. Gabriele and Perry are free to twist the facts—and they know it.

Naturally, the authors also take up the thesis, which has now been embraced by most American educators, that Spain was lucky to be invaded by the Umayyad Caliphate in 711, and the only people who didn’t want to be colonized by Berbers and Arabs were racists. Unlike (say) the British settlements in North America, Muslims and people of color exploiting divisions among white Christians to colonize their lands is totally fine. In fact, it’s not even colonialism. According to Gabriele and Perry, the Umayyad are guilty of nothing more than “bringing closure to a civil war.” Really, they were doing the Spanish a favor! I wish I was making this up.

If that seems implausible to you, that’s because you’ve been brainwashed by Francisco Franco. According to the authors, support for the Reconquista—Spaniards fighting to reclaim Spain from their colonizers—was “mainstreamed” by “Spanish nationalism and contemporary Roman Catholic reactionism, and then embraced by Franco’s fascists just before World War II.” Gabriele and Perry continue: “According to Franco’s authoritarian nostalgia, just as medieval Christians fought against Islam, so he fought to retake the country once more, this time from republicans, anarchists, and Communists. Unsurprisingly, this framing remains prevalent to this day.”

Some may find it improbable that the U.S. education system has been unknowingly teaching Francoist propaganda. Did the Generalissimo send spies to infiltrate the history departments of American colleges? Did wealthy Spaniards with ties to Franco’s government quietly fund campus programs, the way China does today? Gabriele and Perry never say.

Then we have the Crusades. According to the authors, “we honestly don’t know—can never know—what was in Pope Urban II’s mind” when he called the First Crusade in 1096. The one thing we cannot say is that the Christians were “making a sober, militarily justified defensive action in response to an unprovoked attack.” Sorry to nitpick but, actually, that’s exactly what they were doing.

Gabriele and Perry note that when Caliph Omar took Jerusalem in 638, he issued a decree allowing toleration for non-Muslims. (At that point, the Holy City was full of Jews and Greek Christians.) True enough, but that still meant a life of dhimmitude for the locals in the best-case scenario. Rarely did the Muslim invaders comply with Omar’s orders. Christian villages were routinely sacked; their inhabitants slaughtered. On holy days like Easter, churches would be burned and worshippers killed. Whole convents full of nuns were raped and murdered. Few Westerners ever seem to wonder how Palestine, the Semitic homeland, came to be populated by Arabic Muslims. Well, that’s how.

And Jerusalem was only the beginning. In the 650s, the Rashidun Caliphate attacked the islands Cyprus, Cos, and Crete. In 653, a Rashidun general named Mu’awiya invaded Rhodes and destroyed the famed Colossus. Mu’awiya would soon become the first Umayyad caliph.

In 645, the Umayyads invaded Armenia. For a while, they allowed Armenian nobles to rule as their vassals. Then, in 705, the local Arab viceroy invited over a thousand of the country’s leading Christians to a meeting in Nakhichevan. The Armenians were locked inside and burned. The survivors were crucified. From then on, the Arabs ruled Armenia directly.

Six years after the massacre at Nakhichevan, the Umayyads invaded Spain.

In 827, the Aghlabid Emirate invaded Sicily. It took seventy years of fighting (and several massacres) to conquer the whole island.

In 840, the Aghlabid armies invaded mainland Italy. They took the cities of Taranto and Bari, sacked Capua, and occupied Benevento. They also raided Rome twice, once in 843 and again in 846.

In 870, the Aghlabids invaded Malta. The capital of Melite was besieged and its inhabitants slaughtered. The rest of the Maltese population was either killed or banished. For a hundred years, the island—now home to over 500,000 people—was deserted.

Then, beginning around the year 1070, Seljuk Turks massacred the populations of Jerusalem, Gaza, Tyre, and Jaffa. Within ten years, Muslims were officially barring Christians from entering Jerusalem. Bands of armed pilgrims would try to fight their way into the city, but those who weren’t killed by Muslim bandits along the way were butchered by Muslim soldiers.

We can be fairly confident that all of this “was in Pope Urban II’s mind” when he called the First Crusade. Those historians like Gabriele and Perry who act like Christians woke up one day and decided to commit genocide are lying, and they know it.

That’s not even the most egregious example of their irrational anti-Christian bias. One chapter of The Bright Ages is dedicated to praising the Vikings, presumably because the Vikings proper were not Christians. It’s true that past historians have wrongly characterized the Norse as bloodthirsty savages. But the grounds on which Gabriele and Perry choose to praise them are bizarre. After describing a Viking ritual in which slave girls were drugged, raped, and then set on fire, the authors declare: “Their society featured significant gender parity, at least in key parts of society. Their cities were vibrant hubs of mercantile exchange. Their men were extremely snazzy dressers.”

I wish it went without saying that nobody who drugs, rapes, and murders women believes in gender parity. Also, “mercantile exchange” is an odd euphemism for raiding and slave trading. But what really gets me is the line about Norsemen being snazzy dressers. This is one of the cardinal sins among modern historians like Gabriele and Perry. They absolutely refuse to take their subject seriously. The Vikings were history’s most ruthless warriors, and yet you’d think the authors were gossiping about characters in an HBO miniseries.

According to Gabriele and Perry, whereas the mass rapists of Scandinavia are proto-feminists, the Byzantines are woman-haters. Why? Because they subjected Empress Theodora (490–548) to “sexist and classist scorn.” Like her husband Justinian, Theodora was born a commoner. She worked as an actress, a trade associated with loose morals even in medieval Byzantium. Much of what contemporary critics wrote about her is vile—too vile to repeat here—and the reputation stuck. Despite being one of the most powerful women in Byzantine history (and a saint in the Orthodox Church), she’s still best remembered for her alleged wantonness. According to Gabriele and Perry, “the story of Theodora reminds us of the enduring power of patriarchal norms when it comes to depicting and attacking powerful women.”

I guess the obvious parallel in modern politics would be Melania Trump, a Slovenian ex-model who rose to prominence by securing an advantageous marriage. I searched the authors’ tweets to see if either of them had said anything about the former First Lady. Of course, they both had, and none of it was flattering. My favorite was Prof. Gabriele asking, “[Does] anyone else think Melania looks like Sherri Ann Cabot from Best in Show?” According to Wikipedia, “Sherri Ann Cabot is the plump, buxom, overly-made-up trophy wife of the elderly Leslie Ward Cabot, her sugar daddy.”

Now, I really don’t care about the tweet, and neither should you. But it goes to show how disingenuous Gabriele and Perry are.

Granted, just because Mrs. Trump’s critics often resort to sexist and classist insults, that doesn’t exempt her from serious criticism. But the same may be said of Theodora, who happened to live in an age when it was common for actresses to perform sex acts on stage and to moonlight as escorts. Not to speak ill of the dead, but one could easily believe the worst about her.

What’s more, virtually every historian agrees that she and her husband were poor rulers. Yes, the Code of Justinian is a triumph, and their reign saw Byzantine culture flourish. But just five years after taking the throne, a huge revolt broke out in Constantinople. The principal causes were the crushing taxes that Justinian and Theodora levied, especially on the poor, and systemic corruption in the royal bureaucracy. Known today as the Nika riots, it broke out during a sporting event, and ended with government mercenaries blocking the entrances to the stadium and butchering 30,000 civilians. Justinian wished to show mercy to the riots’ leaders, but Theodora insisted he make an example of them. The leaders were promptly executed; their bodies dumped in the sea.

To dismiss all of Theodora’s critics as classists and sexists is like saying the Syrian people only revolted against Assad because they didn’t like his mustache.

I could go on (and on and on) about all the strange, needless errors in this strange, needless book. But I’d rather not. Actually, I try to avoid writing negative book reviews. I only made an exception this time because, at some level, the authors must know this is a bad book.

The Bright Ages is the product of the modern university system, which prioritizes making money above everything else. Academics aren’t promoted for their ability to teach; it’s all based on their publication history. Professors like Gabriele and Perry pad their resumes by writing these “accessible” histories for big-name publishers like HarperCollins.

To stand out in a crowded field, they give their books ludicrous theses like There were no white people in medieval Europe, or high school history teachers are all secret Francoists. The theses can’t be supported by facts. But that doesn’t matter. The point of the book isn’t to inform. The point is to show that the author’s values are those of an 18-year-old middle-class white girl: the key demographic for college admissions departments. And what do white girls like? Sexy feminist Vikings.

Still, I don’t think Gabriele and Perry spent all those years working on their PhDs just so they could spread lies and slander about medieval Europeans. I wonder, when did they first fall in love with the Middle Ages? Maybe it was reading The Canterbury Tales in high school. Maybe it was a visit to Notre-Dame de Paris. Or maybe they played too much Age of Empires growing up, like me. Deep down they must be tired of burying their passion under mountains of politically correct nonsense. Part of them must want to share that love, not suffocate it.

There are thousands of talented scholars all over the country who are forced to adulterate their scholarship by pandering to braindead teenagers, so administrators can give themselves fat bonuses. Yes, that should make us angry. But we should feel pity more than anything else.

We deserve a better history of medieval Europe than The Bright Ages.

We deserve better historians than Gabriele and Perry.

News of the Times;
I saw a woman in Walmart with March Madness teeth.

She was down to the Final Four.


Interviewer: Is it OK if I contact your previous employer to make sure you're a good fit?

ME: Sure, as long as I can contact your ex-employees to see why they quit.


An Englishman is hiking in Scotland and he pauses to drink from a stream. A passing shepherd calls out "Dinnae drink frae that, it's all fulla coo piss an shite!"

The Englishman says to him in a cut-glass accent "I'm terribly sorry, my good fellow, would you very much mind repeating that in the Queen's English?"

And the shepherd says "I'm terribly sorry sir, I was only asking if you would like to borrow this tin cup and get a proper drink?"


A New York business man buys a newspaper, glances at the front page, throws it away.

Next day: same thing.

This goes on for days.

Eventually, the newspaper guy asks, "Why DO you do keep doing that?"

"Oh, I'm just checking for an obituary"

"But obituaries aren't even on the front page!"

"Oh, the one I'm looking for will be"


Them: You can't bring food in here!

Me: Oh, this is a service BLT.

Quote of the Times;
"If I wanna know the Truth, I just listen to CNN and believe the opposite" - Dr. Zelenko

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Noam Chomsky Goes Off the Deep End – Proving that All Socialism Leads to Tyranny by Brandon Smith

I was recently watching a new interview with 92-year-old Noam Chomsky, a figure of general worship among leftist academics, and I began reminiscing about the first time I read the book ‘Manufacturing Consent’. Though I have never agreed with Chomsky’s politics I have always appreciated his analysis on the methods the establishment uses to control mass psychology and silence popular discourse. I have long felt that this was an area where the political left and conservatives might intersect in our views and find common ground. This is why I felt an extra dose of disappointment when I witnessed Chomsky go off the deep end this week and suggest that people who refuse to comply with vaccine mandates need to be ostracized from society.

Chomsky compared people who don’t comply with the vaccines to people who don’t comply with traffic lights, suggesting we pose an imminent danger to others and that we should be removed. When asked how unvaxxed people forced out of the economy could be fed (how would they survive), he asserted “that is their problem.” Chomsky does not explicitly say that force should be used to eliminate the unvaxxed from social participation, he merely insinuates that “actions” might be required to get the desired effect.

I was around 20 years of age back in 2001 when I first read Manufacturing Consent. I was young and not fully aware at the time of a basic function of the political left and socialism that is vital to understand: Many people claim there is a “spectrum” of political beliefs on the left and that there are those that support socialism or centralization while also supporting freedom, but this is simply not so. At the core of their ideology freedom has no home, and when pressed on where they truly stand every socialist WILL eventually support tyranny as a means to achieve their Utopian vision of society.

Chomsky has long claimed himself to be a “libertarian socialist.” In the past I have found that a classic misdirection of covertly authoritarian people is to tack the “libertarian” label onto whatever they believe in. Con-men like Chomsky figure that most normies don’t actually know what libertarianism is, but they’ll assume it means that you “support liberty.” It’s a calculated abuse of the ideology designed to mask the collectivist’s true intentions.

I don’t even know that I personally fit into the libertarian framework, but I do hold some of its basic tenets as fundamental.

A key pillar of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle – A foundational rule for society that says the use of force or coercion to impose one’s beliefs or ideology on others is wrong, and the use of force in general is wrong unless it is in defense of yourself or the lives of others. The problem with socialists and collectivists is that they ALWAYS find a way to claim that their brand of force is somehow in defense of the lives of others. That is to say, the “greater good” is the go-to excuse for all modern totalitarians.

Chomsky will claim that his hard-line stance against unvaccinated people is predicated on saving lives, and that’s the great swindle. When science and logic is applied, we see that the vax mandates have nothing to do with protecting the lives or safety of the public. That said, those same mandates are very effective in elevating the socialist goal of total centralization. How convenient…

Chomsky’s bias is evident in the lack of rational thought he puts forward. In fact, Chomsky never addresses the basic contradictions inherent in his claim that traffic laws and vaccine mandates are the same.

Firstly, covid mandates are NOT laws; they are dictates that have never been voted on by a single legislature nor the American people. This means mandates are meaningless in a legal sense. At least with new traffic laws the voters or legislators get some say in potential changes. The vaccine mandates are purely totalitarian in nature and completely circumvent all constitutional checks and balances.

Imagine if one day Biden assumed defacto control over all traffic rules, and then claimed the authority to deny all people who run red lights access to the majority of jobs and the overall economy? That would be absurd, right? Well, that’s exactly what Biden and his globalist handlers are doing with the covid mandates.

Secondly, obeying a traffic light is not the same as allowing yourself to be injected with a barely tested experimental mRNA cocktail – a “vaccine” which numerous health and virology professionals have warned could have potentially damaging side effects including autoimmune disorders, blood clots and infertility. Traffic lights have been in existence for decades; we know a red light is not going to harm our health. The covid vaccines have been in existence for about a year and have no long term testing (that has ever been released to the public) to back their safety.

All vaccines in common usage today were tested for at least 10 to 15 years before being released for use on the wider population. The covid vaccines were slapped together at “warp speed”, at least according the official story. Who are the guinea pigs for these mRNA jabs? The entire human population. Every person in the country is now considered a guinea pig.

We have no idea what the implications of this unprecedented experiment will be in the next few years.

Chomsky’s comparisons are obviously ridiculous and it’s frustrating that I’m required to point this out. One would think that the co-author of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ would be able to easily discern the massive differences in terms of violating public freedom. But, for some reason he can’t seem to grasp the foolishness at the heart of his debate. Or, he is being deliberately ignorant because he thinks, like many globalists, that there is something to be gained in going along with the farce…

The “greater good” theory is meant to either appeal-to or silence conservatives and libertarians that oppose the vaccines on the grounds of the non-aggression principle. Covid mandates rely on the claim that the unvaccinated are an integral danger to society as a whole, and thus force is justified. Now, I have been asking this question over and over again for the past year to any vax fanatic I run across, and not a single person has come up with a valid counter-argument:

If the vaccines work, then how are unvaccinated people a threat to vaccinated people? If the vaccines don’t work, then why take them in the first place and why mandate them?

What does Chomsky think the average death rate of covid actually is? Is he aware that according to dozens of peer reviewed studies the median Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid is only 0.27%? Who exactly are the unvaxxed a threat to? Less than 1% of the population? And if we are actually a threat to these people, then maybe THEY should take the vaccines, if they think the vaccines truly work.

What about the fact that vaccinated people still transmit the disease to others, according the the CDC narrative?

Furthermore, new studies from countries with very high rates of vaccination have shown that natural immunity formed by people who have already had covid (like I have) is superior in protection against future contraction or transmission of the covid virus. Natural immunity is up to 27 times more effective than the vaccines. It trumps the jab to an epic degree.

And what about all those breakthrough cases and deaths of fully vaccinated people? Chomsky must be ignoring those as well. Nearly 60% of all people hospitalized in Israel are fully vaccinated; 56% of all covid deaths from April to October in Ireland were people who received at least one vaccination. Who caused that? Unvaxxed people most of whom have superior natural immunity? Or, vaccinated people with low comparative immunity and the ability to transmit the disease?

Maybe Chomsky just isn’t educated on the science, or maybe he doesn’t care. Either way, his mentality is destructive and typical of socialists and leftists.

I am reminded of a radio show I did many years ago out of the UK which presented itself as a kind of liberty forum. As it turned out, the host was a socialist with some tourism into libertarianism and he was anxious for a debate. I was a little annoyed with the ambush on the merits of socialism but my position on it is simple enough that anyone should be able to understand it:

If a group of people want to form a community or collective based on socialist values then they should be allowed to do so in peace, as long as all participation is voluntary and they don’t try to harm anyone in the process.

At first the show host appeared to agree with this idea, but his support of personal freedom proved superficial as the debate went on. His argument was “What about all the people in society that need our help, such as those that are in poverty or are disabled? Don’t we need a centralized system in place to manage these kinds of problems?”

My response: “By all means, go and help those people if you want to help them. Just don’t try to force me to do it. I might want to help them too, but I will do it in my way, not yours.”

And here is where every single socialist shows their true authoritarian colors – The host then argued that while I might be a good and charitable person the majority of people, in his mind, are not. And so, we must all be forced by government to contribute to society in the manner “society” has deemed appropriate.

There you have it. Like Chomsky, this socialist was appealing to the greater good as a tool to impose HIS ideological vision onto everyone else; not to protect the lives and freedoms of individuals, which is the ONLY purview of government, but to make people participate in the way HE thinks they should participate. People must be forced to uphold social standards, and the social standards are coincidentally defined by the very people that benefit most from collectivism.

At no point do socialists and leftists ever suggest that more individual freedom might be the best option for elevating the greater good. Their solutions always involve progressively less freedom for the individual and more power for the government, the same government which they expect to control.

To be clear, I’m not talking about silly notions of anarchy, just constitutional protections for inherent freedoms. The political left only seeks to erode the liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and no matter where they are on the leftist spectrum they all end up at the same terrible draconian place given the right circumstances.

This is evident as the vax mandates spread around the world, with nations and states run by leftists now mired in oppression. The facts are undeniable – Blue states are enslaved, red states are free. Leftists support tyranny, conservatives support freedom. Millions of people are trying to escape blue states; almost no one wants to relocate to one.

Even Noam Chomsky, a supposed anti-establishment champion, reverts to little more than a decrepit dictator rationalizing mass starvation when the opportunity to enforce vaccine mandates arises. Maybe he is feeling his mortality along with his age and fear of covid has overwhelmed his senses. I doubt it. I suspect the promise of collective power is so intoxicating to all socialists that their masks and costumes fall away and their true character emerges whether they want it to or not.

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support the forced vaccination argument. There is not a single shred of proof to support the claim that an unvaxxed person is a threat to the safety of anyone else. I’ll say it again – Mandates are not laws, and even if they were they would be unconstitutional laws. There is nothing legal, rational, scientific or moral compelling me to submit to an experimental vaccine. Chomsky and his ilk have no leg to stand on.

So, we are at an impasse. They want power over us, and we will not give it to them. Therefore, the law of the jungle takes over. The bottom line is this:

I will not comply with your illegitimate mandates. IT-WILL-NEVER-HAPPEN. And if you think you can use leverage to force me to comply, threatening me with poverty and death through economic discrimination, then I will view your actions for what they are – An attack on my freedoms and my life. I will therefore respond in kind and eliminate the threat by any means necessary, and, I will be justified in doing so, constitutionally, rationally, scientifically and morally.

Covid cultists like Chomsky, most of them leftists and socialists, should keep this in mind as they continue down this path. They think that the greater good is on their side but this is a fantasy driven by their own hunger for dominance. The question you need to ask yourselves is this: Do you really think your desire to force the mandates and your political ideology on me is greater than my will to stop you and remain free? Are you ready to risk death to impose the vax mandates? Because I am ready to risk death to end them.

News of the Times;
My daughter was doing her homework and asked me what I knew about Galileo.

I told her that he was just a poor boy, from a poor family.


What is the preferred pizza place for epileptic midgets?

Little Seizures.



My super-power is holding on to junk for years and then throwing it away a week before I need it.

I have to say that flipping off a driverless vehicle is not nearly as satisfying.

I really need to get in shape, I realized today that if I was murdered, my chalk outline would be a circle.

Don't you hate it when you try to make a protein shake and you accidentally make a Margarita?

I had a hen that could count her own eggs; she was a mathmachicken.

Today's Work At Home Tip: Blowing on your wine in your mug will make people believe your tea is really hot.

Stop blaming everyone for your problems; find one person you hate and just blame them!

I just printed on a wireless printer and now I'm wondering which neighbor got the document.

I am not 40 years old; I'm 18 with 22 years experience.

I am not a complete idiot; some parts are missing.


Might wake up early and go running tomorrow.

I also might win the lottery.

Odds are about the same.


Walking past a new employee's desk & yelling, "Do you think it's a good idea to be surfing porn on your first day?" will never get old.

Quote of the Times;
The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Lenin

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Biden's Handlers Want Skyrocketing Gas Prices. The EPA Just Revealed Why. by Robert Spencer

The Democrats are well aware of the old adage, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” and are busy applying it as gas prices spiral out of all control. As PJM’s Chris Queen discussed Monday, Transportation Secretary Pete “Mr. Mom” Buttigieg appeared to be fantastically out of touch when he responded to skyrocketing prices at the pump. “Clean transportation can bring significant cost savings for the American people as well,” asserted Buttigieg. “Last month, we announced a $5 billion investment to build out a nationwide electric vehicle charging network so that people from rural to suburban to urban communities can all benefit from the gas savings of driving an EV.”

It was a real “Let Them Eat Cake” moment for Secretary Pete, but there is a method to his madness: the administration isn’t just out of touch, it is actively trying to use this crisis to impose its green agenda. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Michael Regan confirmed that on Monday.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Regan was at the White House, along with Buttigieg and alleged Vice President Kamala Harris, to announce “proposed limits on new buses and large trucks to curb some of their greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90% in the next decade.” In the course of his remarks, Regan boasted, “We’re pressing the accelerator to reach a zero-emissions future sooner than most people thought.”

Nothing presses the accelerator to reach a zero-emissions future more effectively than gas prices rising so high that driving a carbon-emitting car is simply too expensive.

At the Monday White House event, Harris was likewise enthusiastic, saying, “We are all in the midst of a turning point. We have the technology to transition to a zero-emission fleet. We can address the climate crisis and grow our economy at the same time.”

We are all in the midst of a turning point, and the green energy forces are not going to let it go to waste. On Tuesday, Old Joe Biden said that the situation was going to get worse, as prices are “gonna go up,” and that he couldn’t do anything about it. “Can’t do much right now. Russia’s responsible.” Biden also risibly claimed that “It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production.”

How is it possible that the president of the United States could be such a shameless liar and constantly get a pass for it from the establishment media? In lying so brazenly, Biden must know that no “journalist” will challenge him, and he must also have such a low opinion of the American people that he assumes most will not realize he is lying. On that score, he may be at least partially right: it’s likely many Americans don’t know that Biden promised, during a presidential debate, that he would “transition away from the oil industry.”

Related: Buttigieg Says the Solution to High Gas Prices Is Simple: Just Buy an EV

Old Joe delivered right away, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, placing a moratorium on oil leases on federal property (which was blocked in court but is apparently still followed in the Interior Department, as the number of drilling permits it has issued has dropped sharply), suspending some existing drilling leases, restricting fracking, placing onerous financial regulations on the oil industry, and more. Now, his handlers have made it clear that they have no intention of revisiting any of this, but instead are looking into buying oil from tyrannical rogue states such as Venezuela and Iran.

It looks as if Biden’s handlers will do anything but relieve the plight of the American people, the plight that they themselves created. If they did ease up on their restrictions on the domestic oil industry and restart work on the Keystone Pipeline, they would face the wrath of the far-Left greens who constitute the great bulk of their base, and it is clear that Biden’s handlers will do anything but cross them. Instead, they’re using this crisis as an opportunity to try to foist their green agenda on the American people, while we have no choice but to go along.

Regan is right: the administration is pedal-to-the-metal on its zero-emissions agenda, and with gas rapidly becoming too expensive to purchase, we are all greens now. After all, the line between abject poverty and environmental consciousness has always been exceedingly thin.

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.