Bion was such a sharp and controversial philosopher that people got tired of arguing with him and started making fun of his parents. It got so bad that he had to release a statement about it.

“My father was a freed slave,” he said. “He sold salted fish, and was so unremarkable that his crowning features were the brands on his face — a keepsake from his old master’s severity. My mother was the kind of woman you’d expect to marry such a man: straight out of a brothel. Then my father, who cheated the tax collector, was sold with our whole family. I was bought by an orator because I was young and charming, and when he died, I inherited all he had. I burned his writings, scraped together everything I could, came here to Athens, and took up philosophy. This is the blood and pedigree I claim, so let Persaeus and Philonides quit talking about it. You can judge me by my own merits.”

With that out of the way, everyone was forced to judge him by his own merits. He took the lowest seat* as Jesus later commanded, and was able to get on with his career of harassing the other philosophers.

We don't have any of his books, but his one-liners were fun and useful enough to pass around for two millennia. When someone asked him who has the most anxiety, he said “whoever wants to be the most happy.” He used to call old age “the harbor of all evils” since all of them like to take refuge there. Noting who gets hit with gossip and slander the hardest, he called fame the mother of all accusations. He called beauty “someone else’s good” since everybody sees you except yourself; and, knowing it takes money to make money, he called wealth “the sinews of success.”

He said not being able to bear evil is itself a great evil. Both he and Antisthenes are credited with the famous line, when asked whether to marry, if she’s ugly you’ll have to bear her; if she’s pretty you’ll have to share her. And in an age of slavery, prostitution, and conquest, he stated that it is better to gratify someone else with your own beauty than to pluck that of another; for the latter hurts both your body and soul.

Predating Jesus, he said the path to Hades is easy to travel — at any rate, men set off on it with their eyes closed. He said of a rich old miser, this man doesn't own property — property owns him. And recognizing the importance of humility, he used to say that a big ego is a big obstacle to progress.

Mirroring today’s there are old soldiers and bold soldiers, but there are no old, bold soldiers, Bion said that in youth men are brave, but in old age they excel in wisdom. He said the downside of being a miser is that you think your property belongs to you, but you get no more benefit from it than if it belonged to somebody else. He said wisdom surpasses the other virtues like sight surpasses the other senses — true, since the other virtues, applied the wrong way, are just as bad as vices. And he used to say that nobody should disparage old age, since everybody is trying so hard to reach it.

One day he saw a slanderer scowling. He said, “I can’t tell whether something bad happened to you or something good happened to somebody else.” And another time, when he was a fellow passenger with some worthless scoundrels, his ship was overtaken by pirates. “We’re done for if they recognize us,” his fellow sailors said — referring to their bad records. Agreeing with them, he comically shot back, “and I too if they don’t recognize me” — a double play on the idea of ransom and the importance of keeping good company.

What exactly was his philosophy? Nobody's quite sure, since he switched schools too many times to say — the mark of either a true fool or a real maverick and a seeker. At first he followed Plato’s Academy. Then he went for the cynicism of Diogenes. Then he followed Theodorus the atheist — a man known for mocking the gods, and being versatile in all kinds of sophistry. Then he followed Theophrastus, a follower of Aristotle. We don’t know whether he was a believer in any of them or just trying them out or mining what he could from them. But we know he was a master of all the different styles and had a great time making fun of everything.

His own style was theatrical, and he liked to use common language to jab at big subjects. His tastes were extravagant, and he loved to move from one city to another — sometimes throwing himself a parade on the way there. He was a gay horndog both for fun and to make allies. An extremely selfish man, he was big on the idea that “friends share property in common.” For this reason, even though students crowded into his lectures, not a single person ever chose to be his disciple.

He loved making fun of “the gods” — which is half noble and half crazy. To make jokes about the false myths and doctrines of the plebs is a good time. To make light of the magic and mystery of the universe is a mistake. Confounding one with the other and being “an atheist” doesn’t make you smarter than everyone else. It makes you confuse the absurdities of everyone else with the real majesty of God.

Which he found out by the end of his life, because he got sick. At that point the people of Chalcis (the place where he died) maintain that he got superstitious. He started reaching out to the gods any way he could, buying amulets and repenting of his irreverence and misdeeds. Because he made fun of everyone and "shared” all their stuff, nobody cared for him when he got sick, and he was in a state of absolute ruin — until some other wiser philosopher sent him two servants. His greed burned all his bridges. His extravagance blew all his savings. His pride led him to all kinds of embarrassment. Proof (like with Solomon) that teaching wisdom and living it are two completely different art forms.

In the end, Bion’s life proved two things. First, that the middle years, when we're healthy and strong and successful, are fleeting — a mere season. And we need to save up money and raise children and good-will for the end of it**. As another “great philosopher” put it,

When I was younger, so much younger than today
I never needed anybody's help in any way
But now these days are gone and I'm not so self assured
Now I find I've changed my mind, I've opened up the doors

And second, that you can make fun of religion all you want; but you came from Someone and you’re going back to Him whether you like it or not. So before cracking too many jokes, make sure you distinguish between Him and the gullibility, the hypocrisy, and the misplaced zeal of His goofy-ass followers.

Yours,

-J

June 9th, 2026

Share

*Taking the lowest seat (as I’ve mentioned before) doesn’t just mean putting yourself in last place forever. The goal is always to finish in first.

What, after all, is a great businessman? Someone who knows how to deliver the goods. And what is a great leader? Somebody who can get you somewhere you want to go. What is a great doctor, a rock star, a lover, or a sage? Somebody who knows how to fix you, how to make you feel, how to make you shine. To “be somebody” you have to first do something. And the key is, it has to be for somebody else. The very neediness of man is the source of our greatness.

As the poet Rumi put it,

Every craftsman searches for what’s not there to practice his craft.

A builder looks for the hole where the roof caved in.

A water carrier chooses the empty pot.

A carpenter stops at the house with no door.

Workers rush toward some hint of emptiness, which they then start to fill.

Their hope is for emptiness, so don’t think you must avoid it.

Emptiness contains what you need!

Dear soul, if you weren't friends with the vast nothing, why would you always be casting your net into it, and waiting so patiently? This invisible ocean has given you such abundance, but still you call it “death” — that which provides you sustenance and work.

Does this mindset of looking for needs and filling them make you a leader or a servant? The answer is both — but one has to come before the other. And if you get it backwards, you finish in last.

**Regarding being famous and dying alone, Samuel Johnson writes in The Rambler,

It is not possible to be regarded with tenderness except by a few. That merit which gives greatness and renown diffuses its influence to a wide compass, but acts weakly on every single breast. It is placed at a distance from common spectators, and shines like one of the remote stars, of which the light reaches us, but not the heat.

The wit, the hero, the philosopher, whom their tempers or their fortunes have hindered from intimate relations, die, without any other effect than that of adding a new topic to the conversation of the day. They impress none with any fresh conviction of the fragility of our nature, because none had any particular interest in their lives, or was united to them by a reciprocation of benefits and endearments.

This is really much simpler than it sounds. If you want to be great to somebody — to be adored, and idolized, and missed — don’t be the President. Just be a good dad.

Subscribe now

Share

It’s said that when God created the earth, one third of the angels disapproved and went rogue. 67% is a solid D or a failing grade in school, but in presidential polls it counts as a solid win — certainly better than President Trump right now, who ranks far lower than God did at creation, but is nearly as good in his own opinion.

The highest approval rating any president ever got was 90% for George W. Bush in 2001, but we feel this is unfair since he hadn’t done anything, was about to botch everything, and technically he cheated. He had all the heavy lifting done for him by Osama Bin Laden. To prove this, right after Dubya we rank his dad, who got 89% for kicking ass instead of getting his ass kicked. But dad raised taxes, so we fired him.

Then there’s FDR in 1945, riding high at 84% right before Harry Truman got 87% for nuking Japan — another so-so president saved by a war crime. And JFK comes in at 72 in 1961 for doing God-knows-what. Proof that in America, cuteness will get you practically anywhere. We know he certainly ranked higher with every lady except his wife.

Lyndon B Johnson comes in at 78% in 1963, mainly for wrecking every bulwark of greatness in the whole country, from immigration to welfare to whether you can fire losers. God created the Milky Way and He gets only 67%; LBJ ruined it and he got 78.

(As an honorable mention, Bill Clinton gave China “special trade relations,” taking an angry, broken, treacherous and communist nation from rock-bottom to superpower, and making sure American jobs went overseas to slave labor. And how is he rated? Very well it turns out, ending with 65% — the highest exit poll for any post-war President. Mostly because the economy “did well” while falling apart).

And what about last place? Not willing to be outdone in anything, the worst rating is also George W. Bush at 19% in 2008 — mostly because he had done things by then. What goes up must come down, they say. Second we have Harry Truman at 22% in 1952, first because of the economy, and next that we had to fight the communists he’d spent the whole last war saving. And third we have Richard Nixon at 24% in 1974 because of the Watergate Scandal — due to the fact that Americans, at the time, had no idea how bad the scandals would be by 2015. And why would we behave so badly? Mostly because we were demoralized and replaced due to policies set by Lyndon B Johnson.

So far President Trump is doing horribly in the polls — mainly for trying to undo the worst things all the presidents did before him. This means manning the border, sending back third-world illegals, bringing jobs back from China, putting an end to riots and lawlessness, ending DEI as far as possible, prosecuting welfare fraudsters, letting people speak truth on Twitter, cleaning up the FBI and the military, trying to make voting fair again, taking on Big Food and Big Pharma, and beating the shit out of Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. For attempting these things he was ranked a measly 33%, mostly because of inflation. Combined with Bush 1’s tax hikes and Clinton's boomtown, this proves that American priorities aren’t always in the right place. But they’re certainly always in the same place.

All things considered, this puts God’s rating pretty high — especially since He was getting rated by angels, whose standards are (in this writer’s opinion) a little bit rigid. He would probably have done better if He'd lowered the price of gas. But we can thank God that at least He wasn’t ranked by Americans, who would have polled Him at 85 for flooding the world, 23 for nuking Sodom and Gomorrah*, and a 55 score on Rotten Tomatoes for the four Gospels, women, and the synapses we used to rank Him.

Yours,

-J

June 1st, 2026

Share

P.S. A glaring question might be asked here. Why is George W Bush first? And why is he joined at the top by a list of mediocrities, ne’er-do-wells, and nincompoops? Where are Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson — the ones who built this place? Where are the ones who conquered all the way to Texas and California? The ones who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? The ones who didn’t open the border to the third world, or bury us in debt, or ruin our schools, sell us to banks, mire us in wars, break our laws, tax us to death, and embarrass us overseas?

We’re left with one of two options. Either polls hadn’t been invented yet, or Americans are retarded. And depending on the subject and the year, my money is on both. (Maybe, counting my blessings, I should just be happy Americans did the reverse and put them on the money. But then again we put “In God We Trust” there too, and we know how much Americans actually take after Him).

We know why George W Bush was dead last. By the end of his term the money-men had robbed and wrecked the economy. They escaped with Golden Parachutes and George Bush bailed out their companies. We were mired in two unwinnable wars and we destabilized a good chunk of the Middle-East. Because of this, millions of “refugees” — single, military-aged Islamic men — were flooding our allies in Europe. Our border was flooded by illegals and the national debt was going sky-high. He started the trend of directly bribing the American people, in times of trouble, with cash deposits. He created a surveillance state which was used to spy on and prosecute innocent Americans. We saw pictures of Arabs getting tortured, sans-trial, in secret off-shore facilities. In practically every serious metric Bush was a failure. He was given the world and decided to screw the pooch.

*Why would God get 85 for flooding the world and 23 for nuking Sodom and Gomorrah? Because in America, that is currently both the public opinion and the law.

Right now it’s legal to burn the American flag (which represents all of us) and a “hate crime” to tire-burn a rainbow crosswalk (which represents maybe 5-10%). In America you can wish everyone fire and brimstone, but if you just wish it to blacks, you’re out of every job except food trucks and construction.

In this country it's okay to hate “your own people” or the whole country; but the act of putting art into your distaste — of thinking, of preference, when working in any sizable business — is verboten.

Subscribe now

Share

I don't consider watching sports a necessary prerequisite to being a man. Depending on the sport, playing them is more like it.

I consider knowing sports stats and knowing Pokemon stats to be exactly the same level of manly. So for those of you who keep calling my Man Card into question every time the draft comes up and I’d rather take a nap, here are a list of things that make a man really manly — and sometimes even god-like. I fit a good chunk of these, but I'd like to fit as many as I can.

1. Diagnosing and fixing your own car, or building or remodeling a house.

2. Being the leader of an effective, ass-kicking, money-making team, or a military unit.

3. Having muscles.

4. Being an expert in philosophy, history, economics, theology, law, or politics.

5. Being able to take punches, literally and metaphorically, and give them.

6. Running into danger when people need your help.

7. Catching flying objects when they're coming at your face — without flinching.

8. Publicly admitting that 99% of the time the police are useless in an emergency, and opting to be your family's first armed line of defense.

9. Being well-versed in Moses’ laws and Solomon’s proverbs.

10. Keeping a cool head when the public is going hysterical for some cause, and even going against it.

11. Knowing the difference between telling the truth and running your mouth.

12. Admitting when you're wrong.*

An objection might be made here. Can’t a woman run a kick-ass business, or be familiar with Plutarch or Schopenhauer, or turn a robber into Swiss cheese? Yes, alongside some others listed here, and I would argue she’d be more of a woman. The people who misunderstand me here forget the opposite of a man isn’t a woman. A man who fails to be a man doesn’t become a woman. He just fails to distinguish himself from the boys.

The eternal fight of manhood isn’t to distinguish yourself from the does, but to make yourself visibly superior to the fawns and the other young bucks. This is how you get the best does — and also how you make the best fawns.

Yours,
-J

January 8th, 2020

Share

PS: The things listed above are mostly different, I think, from raw, physical masculinity. But raw and physical masculinity isn't something to be left out. Country music is in fact the last scene in these United States, barring some strains of Christian worship, where a baritone sounds right at home — and this I think is a great part of its appeal.

A woman who goes to a country show usually sees a man who sounds like he belongs with the fields or the rivers or the mountains — who has stubble, tight jeans, and makes you feel like he could walk off the stage and immediately get somebody pregnant. Or at the very least change a tire. This puts him in overt superiority to the gay and scrawny eunuch of pop music — usually left-wing men who look like they either smell, or have a disease, or came from the ghetto, or from outer space. Either way you know they can’t save you in a fight.

I theorize a good country singer is to modern, masculinity-starved women like catnip; and his voice and lyrics are so soothing they're willing to overlook the banality of the music. There's no famous drummer like Keith Moon in country, and no guitarist known for his fingerwork like Angus Young. In country there's the singer, the whole singer, and nothing but the singer.

At country shows you won’t see anything revolutionary, but because of this reliance on high testosterone and an overwhelmingly sturdy, almost obvious sound, the kinds of women country attracts are many times top-notch as far as biology is concerned. They tend to be warm and natural and have long hair. I've met plenty of other women who've liked other music and turned out alright; but the ones who love sad lyrics and chest hair are the ones you want on a warm summer night. (It could also be argued, on the other hand, according to country's lyrics, that these women will ruin you).

*One of the finest things about me, I think, is my ability to apologize. Because I have the spark of life in me I'm wrong often and embarrassingly; and when I am I take the initiative — and quickly**. I expect mistakes out of myself and from others. I'm ready to forgive and ready for forgiveness. I have yet to deny anyone who apologizes. My anger is swift and brutal but I can end it in an instant. I know of nobody, except the lost cause and the unrepentant, whom I've left behind for dead.

Thus one of the worst things to me about feminists is their insistence that women shouldn't have to apologize — “like a man doesn’t.” A man who screws up through his own fault and refuses to admit it might be a man, but he's bad at it. He takes no responsibility for himself and his actions, the crucial and obvious foundation of all manhood. He sees the bridge of all trust and progress and he burns it.

Thus a woman who refuses to apologize so she can be “equal with men” is much worse than a bad man. She's a halfwit modeling herself blindly after the worst men. She claims all men as her equals, and then makes the jackass her guru.

**A recent example is the other day when Kobe died. Someone at work said it was sad and I said that it wasn't. I made the argument that much better men had died this year, and we shouldn't waste our energy mourning another worthless baller.

The next day I was treated to a slew of evidence that Kobe wasn't just a rando who played sports, but a devout Catholic, a solid family man, and a hard-working, good-exampling all-star American. So I went back to this coworker and told him I'm an assclown. I had judged a great man because he played in the company of ne'er-do-wells and nincompoops and professional jugglers. I was right of course that we put too much stock in sports and sport players. But most of us were never good enough to rub shoulders with Kobe — or with Pat Tillman.

Share

Subscribe now

Before any Republicans accuse me of being a hopeless idealist, a traitor, or another conservative milquetoast, I want to say one thing. And it’s that if anybody deserves to lose their vote, it’s Democrats.

A quick look at the cities they run proves they shouldn’t be allowed to run a dog park*. Detroit was called Motor City and The Paris of the Midwest. San Francisco was called The Golden City. Chicago was the Paris of the Prairie. Cincinnati was The Queen City of the West. Philadelphia and Boston were both called The Athens of America. Nobody calls them these names anymore — unless of course they’re being sarcastic.

Memphis, Portland, New York City, Seattle, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and even Washington DC were also known at one time as beacons of civilization — remarkable for culture, industry, and architecture. Now each of them is known for rape and murder, robberies and race riots, junkies, white and capital flight, bad schools, rotting factories, infrastructure on the fritz, and crazy people shitting on streets. And somehow, despite being full of third-worlders, white false Christs and killer clowns, they’re still some of the most unaffordable places to live in the US. A hell of a legacy for the left wing — or, more appropriately, a legacy from hell.

What this proves is that, if we require testing to drive a car, we ought to test people before letting them drive a city. This test should include basic economics, civics, and, in a city of 300,000 or more, a test about the structure of state and city governments. But this is almost beside the point. In any remotely democratic environment, stupid people have always been allowed to vote. And I remind you that people always think the person who votes against them is stupid anyway.

Thus the whole point of a republic isn’t to enforce all the most brilliant ideas. It’s to not let one arrogant and selfish group bulldoze all the others. It’s the belief that if any group oversteps its boundaries, the pain itself should lead the other people to fix it. In other words, the real question today in our republic is whether stupid people should be allowed to cheat.

Because gerrymandering is cheating. And our states have been gerrymandered badly for a long time — most usually to benefit Democrats. But when Texas accused Democrats of leaving the border open, thus flooding Texas with illegal immigrants and giving representatives and electoral votes to New York and California, Texas redistricted to “balance things out” — one obvious cheat for another.

California responded by nearly shutting Republicans out. Then Virginia tried to shut Republicans out, and their state Supreme Court, with great reason, said they broke constitutional law in the way they tried to do it. The court said you had to do the wrong thing in the right way — and the federal Supreme Court agreed. They said there’s no federal right to stop anyone from shutting out the other party in any state. Amazingly, according to federal law, it’s only illegal to shut out a race.

This made things even hairier, because the entire South had already been gerrymandered to favor blacks. Now the whole South is trying to undo it, and whether right or wrong, the Democrats are crying foul — primarily because they’re losing. Democrats say they had to gerrymander the South because the South had a history of shutting out black votes. Which, if you look at a district map, is the same case Republicans could make about being entirely shut out of New England**. (Currently, Republicans comprise about 40 percent of New Englanders, and get zero elected representatives in Congress. Black people make up around 20 percent of the South — and before 2026, due to race-based gerrymandering, they picked about 15 seats. All of which went to Democrats).

I’m not saying Democrats have a good case against the South. I’m also not saying Republicans are all right. Some of the redistricting Republicans are doing — such as splitting Memphis into three distinct districts — is clearly a power play. What I’m saying is that if we don’t quit all this cheating, we’ll quickly find ourselves in a race to the bottom. Once we’re convinced that votes are either fake or don’t count, there’s no peaceful resolution available. You either make voting fair or it’s “taxation without representation.” And nobody should know better about how that ends than Americans.

The big obstacle we have to get over to fix all this, other than cheaters, is psychological — and it's called “clock setting.” Clock setting is when you start your story when the other guy struck first. It doesn’t say why he hit you, and thus pretends you didn’t do anything to deserve it. It’s a cheap move designed to wipe away your sins and rob the enemy of all merit — like saying your husband punched you without saying you hit him over the head with a frying pan first. Or like saying Christians tried to steal The Holy Land without mentioning the Muslims already stole it from Christians. Or saying what Germany did to Jews without explaining what communist Jews were trying to do to Germany (hint: it already happened in Soviet Russia***). In this case Democrats and Republicans both say the other drew first blood. I’m here to tell you why that almost doesn't matter.

Gandhi said an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind because once you start looking at the paper trail, almost everyone can accuse their enemy of drawing first or clock-setting. And once you go too far back in the chain of events everything begins to get silly. One moment you’re fighting because somebody socked you in the nose. And the next you’re arguing because Charles VI took Naples from Spain.

So if you want to know where to really begin a conflict, a better question would be where does it end? Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. This is because any idiot can start a war; but it takes a certain kind of man to make peace. And heaven can only be filled with the latter.

Thus the best solution to cheating in elections isn’t to cheat back, but to remove all grounds for accusation. It would be to end birthright citizenship immediately for children of illegal aliens. It would be to count only citizens on the census, thus denying extra representatives and electoral votes to anyone who wouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway. It would be requiring an ID at voting booths, giving everyone a federal holiday to vote, and getting rid of electronic voting. It would also get rid of ballot harvesting and (aside from the military) voting-by-mail — two common causes of legitimate suspicion. And finally, we should force every state to have a bi-partisan commission for redistricting, to ensure nobody is allowed to do any gerrymandering.

The alternative to this is cheat or be cheated. And to be frank, in the long run, on this level, I think the Democrats have a history of winning***.

Yours,

-J

Subscribe now

Share

*An important question might be asked here. If Republicans are so great, why do Democrats run all the biggest cities? Why, in the last 50 years, have they owned the most centers of industry and culture?

My answer is simple. You can’t turn a village into an industrial society with leftism. Leftism can only thrive where some other non-leftist has already built something great. Leftism is a taking of capital — not a making of capital. Unlike business, which creates products and services which didn't exist, leftism is a reimagining and repurposing of wealth that already exists. Thus leftists are strongest only where there is capital to take. By nature, leftism is parasitic.

A city can only get big because geniuses build big things. Then it attracts people who who can't dream stuff on their own, but need good jobs. Then, once the population swells, people show up who are allured by the anonymity, the opportunity, the novelty and sex of a big city, and can barely hold the worst jobs.

Once a city reaches this state, the geniuses usually get cocky and greedy and overstep their boundaries. The booming market drives home prices up, displacing the incapables and the natives, at which point the leftist shows up, calling attention to the crimes and/or indiscretions of the geniuses. And he woos the job-holders, the racial “minorities,” and the proletariat with promises of loot.

At which point the genius is either cut down to size, or he packs up his bags and high-tails it somewhere else.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in 2023 alone, more firms migrated to red Florida and Texas than any place else — a relocation of HQs numbering in the hundreds. And by contrast, no state lost more firms than blue California, Illinois, and New York. Among these illustrious losses over the years are Chevron, Tesla, Oracle, Charles Schwab, Hewlett Packard, Citadel, McKesson, X (formerly known as Twitter), AECOM, FICO, Public Storage, Dutch Bros and SpaceX. Hollywood itself has fled to places like Canada and Georgia. JP Morgan has more employees in Texas than in New York now, and Goldman Sachs is building a giant campus in Dallas. Starbucks shifted thousands of jobs to Nashville. Boeing moved their 787 engineering and assembly teams to South Carolina. And Amazon is relocating thousands of jobs out of Seattle and Washington to avoid excruciating taxes.

According to Seattle's KOMO News, dozens of Washington’s major companies, including Alaska Airlines, Amazon, Costco, Microsoft, Nordstrom, PSE, Zillow, T-Mobile, Redfin, Virginia Mason, WaFd Bank, Weyerhaeuser, Puget Sound Energy, and the freaking Seattle Mariners, just sent a letter to the governor, begging him to revise the state’s new taxes and budget. They cited “the largest tax hikes in the state's history,” and “a threat to the state’s economic stability.” The response from Democrat leaders was that the big producers can suck it.

The Association of Washington Businesses now reports that one out of every four businesses is openly considering leaving Washington.

***Are leftists really better at cheating?

Leftism, at bottom, is the idea that the system is rotten and it has to be broken. Conservatism, at face value, is the idea that a system is worth keeping and has to be preserved. Thus one of us values process, decorum, and fair-play more than the other.

Leftists are made by definition to cheat. Conservatives are almost designed by God to be cheated.

****How involved were the Jews in the spread of communism? Orlando Figes notes, in his history of the Russian Revolution, that the chief rabbi of Moscow once joked The Trotsky's make the revolutions and the Bronsteins pay the bills.

**Because all this talk of districts and cheating is hard to picture, here are some pictures.

This is the map Virginia Democrats tried to use, which was shot down (thank God) by the state Supreme Court:

This is how rotten it was:

Below is the current shutout of Republicans in New England, which has been this way for a long time:

Below is a comparison between Republicans getting shut out in Massachusetts and Democrats getting shut out in Tennessee. Note: this is the Tennessee map before Republicans redrew it, splitting Memphis into three districts, and eliminating the last Democratic stronghold:

And finally, this is a map of what the South has looked like for a while, and what it could look like by the end of the year — right in time for midterms:

Subscribe now

Share

Starship Troopers is such a rich and solid book that now I use it as a litmus test. A man can have any number of objections to Heartburn, or Anna Karenina — hell, even to the Bible. But if he picks up Starship Troopers and says it’s “okay” I wonder if something is deeply wrong with him as a man. And if he tells me the book is "fascist” I have a hard time believing he bears the image of God.

The reason this sounds bombastic is because almost everybody my age saw the movie first, and it was written and directed by a couple of weenies. Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier were such a couple of soyboys, in fact, that they turned the fiercely masculine, anti-communist, duty-and-honor space epic into a campy, silly parody of itself. And why? Because they didn’t like Heinlein’s vibe, and they really wanted to piss off the fanboys.

So they hired Doogie Howser to play military intelligence. They dressed him in an SS uniform to highlight “the dangers of fascism” — a tactical mistake, since he was the best-dressed guy in the entire movie. They had people do backflips while playing high-school football. They had men and women showering together and serving side-by-side in the infantry. And probably worst of all, they had the space marines, 300 years into the future, leading janky, directionless charges that look like they came from 300 years in the past.

The mechanized armor? Totally left out. Corny propaganda reels? He added them in. The bug wars that were almost a footnote in the novel were the main feature of the movie, and every conversation of real depth and insight was totally nixed. I admit Starship Troopers is a fun movie. But that’s primarily because it's stupid.

In the novel the best parts are Johnny Rico's flashbacks and boot camp. There you’ll find conversations about what makes the young act out, why the West is falling apart, who should get to vote and why, and why communism doesn’t work. There are short treatises on what a soldier is and what makes a good one, why self-discipline is an essential virtue, and why struggle is the only thing makes life valuable. If that last part left you scratching your head, definitely pick up this book.

Starship Troopers is brimming with a militaristic and almost Roman virtue. It was written by a man's man who loved being in the Navy, served honorably, and always looked back on it with fondness. He held no illusions about what makes society run well and where Western Civilization was heading, and he put these things in a space story about men fighting bugs because writing it that way was fun.

The prose is solid and straight-forward even seventy years later. The book itself is short and sweet, and the narration by R.C. Bray on Audible is perfect. The Marines put it on their list of recommended reading up until the reign of Barack Obama, when it was deliberately cut. (If this doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the book, go pick up the autobiography of Chandler Bing instead).

And that's why I use Heinlein as a litmus test. With other great books you catch a whiff of charm, and wit, and wisdom. With this one there’s a strong musk of testosterone and honor — and like so many other virtues, you can only smell it if you have it.

Yours,

-J

May 11th, 2026

Share

Subscribe now

Years of my spiritual insights, deft criticisms of social contagions, and talk of things like reason and virtue might lead somebody out there — poor bastard! — to think of me as a saint. But the real secret to my happiness is I know I’m a clown.

I get better every year at mastering the Cardinal Virtues, of course; but what I’m best at is the unmentioned virtue that doesn’t win you any statues, and that virtue is humility. I should have gotten a trophy for it by now, but people think this defeats the purpose — and they’re wrong.

Humility is the art of knowing your place*. You can reach for the virtues but you can’t always be them — at least not for too long, and a humble person knows it. Once you think you are them you get knocked off your pedestal, and it’s embarrassing; so the most comfortable place to set up base camp is low. You can climb from this sea-level position for short bits of time and aim and posture all you like, and get lots of spiritual exercise, and dream; but you can’t fall from it, so that’s where you should try to put yourself. Because gravity is real, and it always wins. Genius today, idiot tomorrow**.

People like to praise humility and then pretend like getting humbled is a terrible thing — as if realizing your limitations and getting a level head are a disgrace. What “getting humbled” means is you got your brains back. You landed on sure footing. No longer run amok by dreams of your own grandeur, yodeling light-headedly in the too-thin air of jagged mountaintops, you sit quietly on the fertile grasslands of reality — unshook by whatever it is you really are.

No delusions here of your own perfection. No surprises or pretenses or trap doors or landslides. The cynic maintains his happiness by leveling the world***. The humble man stays happy by leveling himself. Pride goes before a fall isn’t a likelihood, but a certainty. You start taking yourself too seriously and that’s when you turn out to be the punchline.

Unlike the other virtues, humility isn’t impressive — but it’s lovable. It might not get you ballads, but it can win you allies. It isn’t pretending you’re the same as everyone else — a bald-faced lie, when you really consider it****. Humility looks like asking forgiveness before the other party even suggests it, being the first to reach out and end a quarrel, listening to the other side’s ideas and really considering their merits, making jokes at your own expense*****, adapting to a situation instead of continuing in the wrong direction, being a general and sleeping on the ground with your troops, asking for help when you don’t know what to do, and crawling around on all fours with your children on your back. Humility sounds small but it allows you to encompass all of life, to grow into better things, to make and keep allies and good friends and devoted followers, to impart a good idea when others would just fight over it. I said the virtues bleed into one another, and they do. Humility isn't an exception, and when you really start talking about it, it looks a hell of a lot like prudence.

Yours,

-J

May 5, 2021

*What does a man with a really big ego forget? That family are the only people who really love and care about you, and almost everybody else is just a mercenary.

One of them cries for you when you’re down. They’ll search for you forever if you ever go missing. And if they can’t find you, they’ll always wonder where you are. The other one forgets you when you stop making them laugh, or earning them cash, or helping them win, or getting them off.

We could love our neighbors more, but this would probably just end in disaster. God gave us small families because we’re guaranteed to lose them, and we can only handle the heartbreak so many times. We’ve been blessed to forget the rest of us — so I thank God I’m able to be forgotten.

**H.L. Mencken writes of cynicism,

One of the most curious human delusions lies in the theory that cynics are unhappy men — that cynicism makes for a general biliousness and malaise. It is a false deduction, I believe, from the obvious fact that cynics make other men unhappy. But they are themselves among the most comfortable and serene of mammals; perhaps only bishops, pet dogs and actors are happier. For what a cynic believes, though it may be too dreadful to put into formal words, at least has the merit of being true — and truth is ever a rock, hard and harsh, but solid under the feet. A cynic is chronically in the position of a wedding guest who has known the bride for nine years, and has had her confidence. He is a great deal less happy, theoretically, than the bridegroom. The bridegroom, beautifully barbered and arrayed, is about to launch into the honeymoon. But the cynic looks ahead two weeks, two months, two years. Such, to borrow a phrase from the late Dr. Eliot, are the durable satisfactions of life.

***The Psalmist says there are six – psych, seven! – things the Lord hates, and one of them is haughty eyes. Personally, I would have guessed He laughs at them, because once I start thinking I’m great I end up laughing at myself.

****Just because I’m humble doesn’t mean I’m average. I don’t think of myself as equal to junkies and I don’t measure myself by Joe Plumber. If I fly above them it’s because I size myself up with King David. To keep humble, to keep level, is also to keep from sinking into the sewers — by constantly judging yourself by the angels. Are you great? Compared to what?

Machiavelli put it much better:

I point to the greatest of men as examples to follow. For men almost always walk along the beaten path, and what they do is almost always an imitation of what others have done before. But you can’t walk exactly in the footsteps of those who have gone before you, nor is it easy to match the virtues of those you have chosen to imitate. So a prudent man will always try to follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate the truly outstanding, so that, if he isn’t quite as skillful as they are, at least some of their ability might rub off on him. One should be like an experienced archer, who, trying to hit someone at a distance and knowing the range of his bow, aims at a point above his target — not so his arrow will hit the point he’s aiming at, but so, by aiming high, he can reach his actual objective.

*****A joke at your own expense is a weapon.

Make a joke about somebody else’s behavior and they might get offended. But if you’re both guilty they’ll laugh along with you, and if you’re trying to teach them something they’re more likely to buy it.

We all know that misery loves company. But probably moreso, so do the guilty.

A joke at your own expense is taking the lowest seat, as Christ commanded. And you’ll find that when you do it well, you get promoted from punchline to professor.

Subscribe now

Share

-P.J. O’Rourke

Dear M,

I'm sorry to report this, but despite obviously being a philosopher, I've been banned from several big Facebook groups about philosophy.

We got off to a good start, but eventually they found out my positions on race and gender and that was pretty much the end of it. Their admins wanted to talk about what “the point of life” is, or which people you’d run over with a trolley (my answer is currently “the admins”), or whether we can know reality; and I decided I already knew reality is real and I wanted to make fun of it. Or rather the people inside of it. And by this I meant their sacred cows and pretensions.

To me this means they’re missing the whole point. Philosophy (proper) is too clean and narrow and technical to nerds — almost too mechanical, like pulling apart a clock. And that makes it something almost work-safe and controllable. But in my perspective philosophy is more like sex: something which can easily build a family or blow one up; a Catholic institution or a hotbed of rebellion; serious and comical at the same time; wild, and fertile, and messy, and organic. And if you tell people the truth it makes you feel kinda naked.

This makes me wonder how philosophers got classified with the invalids and video-gamers. In my sight philosophy makes a man more robust, and likely to get himself laid — or maybe socked in the nose. And if somebody throws a punch, philosophy should make you ready to dodge and throw one right back. How should a man take a punch, by the way? And do you think he deserved it? These are good topics for a philosopher — not Plato's stupid cave allegory, or the difference between “noumena” and “phenomena.”

In this sense it's more an art form or a dance than an arm-chair profession: a willingness to grow and tinker around; to try something better and push yourself harder; to smell, and see, and touch the beautiful, the electrical, the inexpressible — in some cases the forbidden. So far from being white-collar, philosophy should get your hands dirty. It should be brave, and charming, and manly, and true. It should be the kind of talk that gets people to stop and listen at a party, even if they can’t look like it. Even if they’re afraid to join in.

So you can read Schopenhauer’s essay on the senses if you want to. I’d rather hear his ideas on the sexes. And I don’t really care about Plato's “forms" or Aristotle’s metaphysics either. I want to hear all their statements on rhetoric, and marriage, and music, and politics — the more honest and the less modern the better. I want a variety of takes on living: some good so I can steal them, some bad so I can make fun of them. The last thing I want is a question of whether life is worth living. We’re all still alive, so I want a treatise on whether eggheads who ask this are worth kicking.

Thus a good question for a philosopher (in my opinion) is, is it ever okay to laugh when somebody dies*? Is the Sermon on the Mount really morally superior — or if we took it seriously, is it dangerous to society? If men and women are equal, where are all the woman geniuses? Shouldn’t you admire your therapist before accepting their therapy? Is “doing things” a rejection of the sovereignty of God? Is folly necessary to be happy? Should you be gracious on Easter or fight for a good cause? Why are secular heroes more interesting than saints? Are emotions the antithesis of reason — or the basis of it? What kind of woman is the most dangerous to marry? If the Holy Spirit inspires people, why is "The Devil's Music” so much better? And despite its critics, is it even possible to get rid of capitalism?

I believe many of these subjects are what others would call politics or polemics or morals or religion; but to me, they fall within the range of philosophy, and the nerds who style themselves “philosophers” don’t like that. They think philosophy is a sanitized side-gig to kill time. I prefer Socrates’ position: that philosophy exists to save lives. But eventually, this means people try to kill you. And then Socrates will sit on death row talking about that too.

Speaking of which, when the city of Athens condemned Socrates to die, Socrates shot back, “and nature has condemned them.” And when his wife told him “you die unjustly” he shot back, “would you prefer that I die justly?”

Two quips worthy of the name philosophy.

Yours,

-J

*There’s been some debate this year about whether you can laugh and say F ‘em when somebody dies. To quote Charlie Kirk, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they deal with somebody’s death. And he’s right: you really do learn a lot.

For instance, what do you do about a man who celebrates Charlie Kirk’s death? That means if he disagrees with you he’d shoot you, and I think we have a right to take him seriously. But what do you do about somebody who won’t laugh at an actual boob? Am I supposed to cry when a grown man sticks his hand in the tiger’s cage and gets bit? Am I supposed to start a GoFundMe when somebody attacks the cops and gets shot? How am I supposed to feel when a college-educated white woman, to prove racism is bad, goes hiking alone in Pakistan and ends up getting murdered? Do I have to feel bad when a rando fights for legalized drugs, and then gets ran over by somebody high on acid and chasing a leprechaun?

The whole point of social liberalism is to debate the possibilities of cause and effect; and to say we can’t laugh at idiots, or even that saying “I told you so” is mean-spirited, or uncouth, or just plain wrong, undoes the whole point. Especially when somebody dies**.

There are lines to be drawn here like with anything else, and those can be reserved for a more respectable essay. But to censor the irony of Charlie Kirk’s death is to completely miss the whole gist of Charlie Kirk’s life. If Charlie said we ought to keep guns, repeatedly, in public, and then gets killed by the armed psychotic Democrat the Democrats warned us about, I think Democrats have a right to point that out. It’s one reason Democrats want us to ban them.

Do I think their arguments are good? For the love of Pete, fuck no. We need guns to protect ourselves from people like Democrats. What I’m saying is that if you have a policy, and somebody dies because we didn’t vote for the policy, you have a right to say “this is why we need the policy.” Even if the policy sucks. And even if the man who wants it is a dick. This is bare-minimum freedom of speech, and without it, nobody has a right to debate anything.

This being said, there’s only one kind of man who sincerely respects folly — and that is the person who practices it. Solomon says, The Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their day is coming. I would argue that sometimes it’s godly to laugh because a fool’s day already came. The big question isn’t whether we can laugh, but whether we’re okay with being laughed at. Here the Golden Rule is a double-edged sword — and we’re never quite sure whether it stings worst when the laughter is just or unjust.

**The truth is, when somebody dies in a stupid way I’m not always sure whether I’ll laugh or I’ll cry.

When I was young I thought of people as individuals. But now that I have kids sometimes I see people as a series of relations. Thus when the founder of Segway was riding his fruity little scooter and texting friends and drove off a cliff, my first instinct was to laugh. But then I think of him as somebody’s son and it isn’t so funny anymore.

And this is the whole point. Tears and laughter all come from the same place. Something went horribly wrong and it hurts — but if we can isolate the absurdity and the pain from the man, from his kids, from his parents, driving off a cliff while texting is a joke. The closer it hits the worse that it gets. The further off, the funnier. Most of the time, anyway.

Thus sometimes we feel terrible about laughing. And sometimes, when the behavior is so bad that we don’t want it anywhere near us or our kids, we couldn’t give less of a shit. It’s either us or the fool. So we use laughter as a weapon — as a lesson. And we hope the wordless sermon sticks.

P.S. Going back to "philosophy proper," the proliferation and establishment of what’s known as existentialism can be blamed mainly on one thing: the disappearance of God from the public consciousness.

Once God was out of the picture everyone asked, “what’s the point?” Which is why, in the age of Christendom, we got so many more interesting (and I would argue even more dangerous) philosophers. The ancient man was building on an unshakable foundation. The modern man doesn’t know whether to build at all. He’s trying to undo a negative, instead of doing something truly positive. The center of his existence isn’t really “how should I live,” but “why should I?”

Another angle on these weak-ass “philosophers” is more telling. Nietzsche writes, in the preface to The Joyous Science, about how he was deathly sick for a while, and how health — of all kinds, you might say — determines your whole view of life.

Assuming that he is a person, of necessity he also has his own personal philosophy: there is, however, an important distinction to be made. In some, their deficiencies philosophize, in others, their wealth and strength. The former have need of their philosophy, whether as support, reassurance, medicine, deliverance, exaltation or depersonalization; the latter merely regard it as a fine luxury, or at best the voluptuousness of a triumphant gratitude which in the end must inscribe itself in cosmic capitals on the heaven of ideas. [...]

After such self-interrogation and self-examination one comes to view all that has ever been philosophized with a keener eye; one more readily discerns the involuntary wrong turns, side streets, resting places and sunny spots of thought to which suffering thinkers, precisely as sufferers, are led and misled: from now on, one knows where the sickly body and its needs unwittingly urge, prod and entice the intellect — to sunlight, tranquillity, gentleness, patience, medicine, balm in some sense. Every philosophy which puts peace above war, every ethic with a negative conception of happiness, every metaphysic and physic that knows an end, a final state of any kind, every predominantly aesthetic or religious longing for some means to get away from, outside of, above or beyond the world, all these raise the question of whether illness has not inspired the philosopher. […] In all philosophizing so far it has not been a question of ‘truth’ at all, but of something else — namely of health, futurity, growth, power, life.

And that's the difference between me and the other modern philosophers. I don’t view this as just a match of good versus evil, or truth versus lies. I am robust, and handsome, and religious — and thus dynamic. And I’m up against the godless, the sexless, the unhealthy and the undisciplined — the dying.

Share

Subscribe now

Shakespeare is the greatest poet in English history — but if you don’t know English history you can easily be made to think he’s the worst.

To prove this, Sir Ian McKellen says, in a recent monologue on The Late Show with Steven Colbert,

It’s all happening 400 years ago, and in London there’s a riot happening — there’s a mob out in the streets. And they’re complaining about the presence of strangers in London. By which they mean the recent immigrants who’ve arrived there. And they’re shouting […] and complaining and saying that the immigrants should be sent home wherever they came from. And the authorities sent out this young lawyer, Thomas More, to put down the riots, which he does in two ways — one by saying, you can’t riot like this: it’s against the law, so shut up and be quiet. And also, being by Shakespeare, with an appeal to their humanity. And in order to set it up, I’m going to have to ask somebody to shout “the strangers should be removed.”

Somebody shouts it, and then he launches on a beautiful monologue from Sir Thomas More — which you really should see for yourself.

It goes,

Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise

Hath chid down all the majesty of England;

Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,

Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,

Plodding tooth ports and costs for transportation,

And that you sit as kings in your desires,

Authority quite silent by your brawl,

And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;

What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught

How insolence and strong hand should prevail,

How order should be quelled; and by this pattern

Not one of you should live an aged man,

For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,

With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,

Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes

Would feed on one another.

He goes on later, with an appeal to The Golden Rule,

You’ll put down strangers,

Kill them, cut their throats, possess their houses,

And lead the majesty of law in line,

To slip him like a hound.

Say now the king (As he is clement, if th’ offender mourn)

Should so much come to short of your great trespass

As but to banish you, whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,

— Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the claimants

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.

— the greatest case in the English language, I think, for helping refugees, and a reminder that In the majority of men, the love of justice is simply the fear of suffering injustice.

But there’s just one problem.

What Colbert and Sir Ian McKellen missed here — probably on purpose — is that Shakespeare was writing about Evil May Day. This was on May 1st, 1517, when English rioters, impelled by jealousy and greed, went around town, dragging lawful German and Flemish business owners out of bed, smashing up their shops, and beating them up. Some sources estimate that around a dozen victims died.

In Shakespeare’s time (almost a century after the riots) this monologue would have been relevant — so relevant, in fact, that the royal censor banned it. Over the past generation the Huguenots had fled France and settled in England. There was a religious war raging between the Catholics and Protestants across the continent, and one that was so sanguine that Catholics had gotten up in the middle of the night in France, formed into mobs, and proceeded to kill as many Protestant neighbors as possible. This was known as The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, and is something that happens today in places like Nigeria and Rwanda, but is completely inconceivable in Europe. We have a hard time even imagining our ancestors doing it.

During this period there weren’t just “hard times” in France. The likelihood that Protestants would be jailed or murdered (or worse) was extremely high. And they had no legal recourse, because the violence wasn't only supported by the government, but many times instigated by it.

What this means is that most of the refugees in Shakespeare’s day were families. They were of the same religion as the English — and almost guaranteed, due to persecution, to be sincerely religious. They shared a common enemy with the English. There was no modern welfare system in Shakespeare’s England, so they couldn’t be coming to leech off the system. Thus the English weren’t upset about an influx of criminals: they were worried about being outclassed by an influx of skilled and religious artisans. This would be almost comparable, in our day, to an influx of Ukrainian doctors, engineers, MBAs, and techies. In Shakespeare’s day there was grumbling, but the royal censor made sure nobody acted like his grandparents. He commanded Shakespeare to “leave out the insurrection wholly and the cause thereof.”

Thus, though Colbert's timing draws an obvious parallel between Shakespeare’s rioters and Republicans, the difference between Shakespeare’s day and ours couldn’t be more stark. First of all, a large chunk of our immigrants today came against the laws. We aren’t getting families, but hordes of single, military-aged men. Most of our immigrants are coming from the poorest and least-educated classes of the poorest and least-educated nations. We don’t share a border with the great majority of illegals. We don’t share a common race or heritage with the great majority of legal immigrants either. We don’t have a common enemy, and, in fact, according to our leftists, the common enemy of the new foreigners is white Americans and Republicans. Oh, and Venezuela emptied their prisons and sent all their rapists to us.

We are currently housing large chunks of illegal immigrants in our prisons — according to the Bureau of Prisons, foreign nationals make up around 16% — and the riots we see happening are mostly by Democrats to keep foreign criminals in-house. Due to our laws, legal immigrants get access to food stamps and social security, and many of our illegal immigrants get free medical care — adding time to wait lists, and driving up the prices drastically for natives. News about immigrants raping children, or drunk-driving over pedestrians, or butchering innocents, is routinely and notoriously buried. And finally, it can be proved that no mass violence — ever, during my whole forty-two years of life — has ever been staged by our natives against immigrants. To put it simply, we’re on the receiving end of a beating, not in the process of dishing one out.

Not only does this make Sir Ian McKellan’s parallel slanderous: it makes it stupid. It’s an abuse of Shakespeare one could expect from an American ignoramus, or maybe from one of Shakespeare’s villains — maybe Macbeth’s wife or Othello's Iago. But certainly not from a Shakespearean actor. And certainly not from the man who played Gandalf — a wise, noble old wizard, whose only claim to fame is driving invaders back to Mordor, and sending even more of them to meet Jesus.

Shakespeare’s play was banned by the law because it hit too close to home. If Shakespeare were to live here a few years and see McKellen’s monologue, I doubt he’d know which home Colbert’s show was trying to hit. But it’s apparent that with our home, Colbert doesn’t really know it; and if he does know it, it’s pretty clear he doesn’t love it. Two things nobody could say about Shakespeare in his day without getting hooted off a soap-box*.

Yours,

-J

April 19th, 2026

Share

Subscribe now

*I’ll let Shakespeare speak for himself — from the mouth of John of Gaunt, in Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1. (If you want to see the best performance of this, by none other than Patrick Stewart, I strongly recommend picking up The Hollow Crown).

This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessèd plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Feared by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renownèd for their deeds as far from home
For Christian service and true chivalry
As is the sepulcher in stubborn Jewry
Of the world’s ransom, blessèd Mary’s son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out—I die pronouncing it—
Like to a tenement or pelting farm.
England, bound in with the triumphant sea,
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of wat’ry Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.
That England that was wont to conquer others
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

Republicans, of course, lack the words for speech like this. But Democrats lack the heart.

Share

Subscribe now

Hi there! My name is Madison, and I’m an empath. What’s an empath? You didn’t ask? You don't care? Don't worry, I’ll tell you!

An empath is a person who has feelings. And not just any feelings, but they feel the feelings you're feeling too. In a bad mood? That affects me! And do you feel sad? I feel that too! In fact, if you poison the mood, I really hate that, and if you’re having a good time, I love it! And no, that’s not just like a regular person!

Also, consider this! You know those people you don’t feel anything for? Well, I have feelings for them too! In fact, I have so many feelings for them that I spend my time wondering why you don’t. I feel sorry for you, actually. Just kidding! I feel angry!

I feel angry that you don't care about the same people I care about — such as junkies, perverts, illegal aliens and other criminals. And what’s this you say? That you care more about their victims? You care more about your countrymen and neighborhood? About your family and ethnicity? Have a heart and care for somebody who matters — like a Somali welfare fraud, for instance!

I hear what you’re saying — that rent goes up when we let millions of illegal aliens in, that force is the only way to get them out, that used car prices and crime went through the roof too, that Central American drugs killed more of us than anything else, that the job market was ruined by cheap labor, and the illegal aliens who wrecked it are paid slave wages anyway — but did you see the toddler cry on Instagram? Why, I could just ruin Thanksgiving dinner and disown my parents over this! Oh, I just remembered: I already did!

And no, don’t ask me the obvious: how is it that I can feel everyone’s fear and pain except Republicans’ — and white people's? And the people I'm sitting at dinner with? Easy answer: because they aren’t good enough to feel the same things I feel.

But, you ask — wouldn't being an empath make our feelings the same? Wouldn't I, The Most Gracious and Compassionate, be able to look into anyone’s eyes and connect? Why can't I read everyone’s emotions and empathize, and not just the losers picked for me by liberal Christians, Democrats, and rage-baiting Tik-Tokers?

Even easier: because the less reason I have to feel, the more feelings I prove that I have. The further the target, the stronger the love. If you love somebody close to you? That’s for normies — for sinners. Loving the stranger, the weirdo, the outcast who has no connections to you at all? That’s empathy. That's love.

So fuck you.

Yours,

-M

March 13th, 2026

Share

Subscribe now

Thomas Paine once wrote about the laws of Moses in The Age of Reason,

They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God ‘visits the sins of the fathers upon the children’. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.

But this is unfair to God. Physics visits the sins of the fathers on the children for generations. There is nothing you do at work that doesn’t affect strangers sitting at home miles away. Every thought that becomes a word, and every word that turns into a deed, launches a chain of effects that you won’t only not see, but that you won’t even be able to comprehend. The tiniest sins, like the tiniest blessings, affect even the unborn. Every day we inherit the entirety of history. And every day we fashion the future in our own image.

We never had the chance to act “for ourselves.” There is nothing in the world that was ever just “your business.” We are acting for everything we ever touch, everything within sight, everything within earshot. People say they don’t believe in Original Sin or guilt by association, but children always pay for the sins of their fathers. Always. Maybe not for all of them, but definitely for some of them.

And it is never fair.

Yours,

-J

March 6th, 2026

Subscribe now

Share

Genesis 6 reads,

[T]he sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. [...] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward— when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Clarification is needed on this subject. We applied for answers to God, to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and Pastor Billy from First Baptist, but to no avail. We were forced out of desperation to hunt for context in the Old Testament; and in it we find that The Sons of God are mentioned in Genesis 6, the Book of Job, and possibly Psalm 82* — all references, apparently, to celestial beings.

Who these beings were (or maybe are) is unclear; but they were present at the founding of the world (Job 38:7), they are obviously a part of God's heavenly court (Job 1:6), and Satan may or may not be one of them (Job 2:1). They took a poll, and thought God did a good job making earth (for the most part). The sons of men, having a shorter-term perspective, and not being privy to insider secrets, have not always been in agreement.

Either way, Genesis 6 leaves us with one of two possibilities. According to Scripture, either the angels in heaven are all men, or the women in heaven are not hot.

The bigger question is why God allowed the possibility of sex in heaven at all — and why, despite the possibility of sex, there is either no sex in heaven, or the sex on earth is preferable. We have yet to see why God would create private parts and not provide either a shut-off switch or a sexual outlet; but this is practically how God designed us down here too. If there are any questions, please consult Matthew 5 for Christ’s definition of “adultery.” Or better yet, read Anna Karenina.

Jesus says, in response to an annoying "gotcha” question about marriage in heaven, that when we die we’ll all be "like the angels” — that is, totally free from marital vows. But this only leaves us with more questions. For instance, are vows unnecessary because we won't have gonads? Or (Sons of God in mind) are marriage vows only necessary here — because of a shortage of love, an excess of lust, and a clear dearth of resources? And will sex result in kids?

The Muslims have the clearest answer on this subject, and, for men, the most appealing. They believe heaven is women*. Proof that at least one person in Abrahamic history understood good marketing — better, at least, than whoever described heaven as “streets of gold” and “endless Hillsong.”

Either way we sincerely hope God either covers us in whoopie or castrates us. The middle ground (in this writer's opinion) belongs better on earth or in hell.

Yours,

-J

March 31st, 2026

Share

*Michael Heiser writes about weird Bible passages in The Unseen Realm,

We all have watershed moments in life, critical turning points where, from that moment on, nothing will ever be the same. One such moment in my own life—the catalyst behind this book—came on a Sunday morning in church while I was in graduate school. I was chatting with a friend who, like me, was working on a PhD in Hebrew studies, killing a few minutes before the service started.

I don’t recall much of the conversation, though I’m sure it was something about Old Testament theology. But I’ll never forget how it ended. My friend handed me his Hebrew Bible, open to Psalm 82. He said simply, “Here, read that … look at it closely.” The first verse hit me like a bolt of lightning:

God [elohim] stands in the divine assembly; he administers judgment in the midst of the gods [elohim].

I’ve indicated the Hebrew wording that caught my eye and put my heart in my throat. The word elohim occurs twice in this short verse. Other than the covenant name, Yahweh, it’s the most common word in the Old Testament for God. And the first use of the word in this verse worked fine. But since I knew my Hebrew grammar, I saw immediately that the second instance needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day: The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.

And that's the basis of Heiser's book. In short, that even Bible scholars — like practically everyone else, I imagine — gloss over the parts of the Bible that don't fit in with their worldview. And second, that if the Bible is true, then the world is much deeper and stranger than most Americans are willing to admit. If you're curious to see how many times theology-wrecking “strange verses” pop up, I strongly recommend reading the book.

Is it really possible, though, that angel wars and pantheons are real, and we miss whole universes right in front of us? According to NPR and Priyamvada Natarajan, an astrophysicist at Yale University, the things we see comprise only about 4 or 5 percent of the known universe. And the other 95% are the things we can either detect with machines, or just exist in theory. Beyond this, we have no idea what our senses and technology and even hypotheses are missing. And these things could be flying right over our heads.

This brings me to another point. The most common objection to Near-Death Experiences (such as meeting the Being of Light) or to ayahuasca trips (such as getting enlightened by a talking snake) is that both NDEs and psychedelic trips are chemical. But I would argue that so is talking to your mom, or grilling a steak. And so is you reading this right now.

So we brush off the Book of Genesis because it’s about talking snakes, and we brush off ayahuasca snakes because not everybody sees the snake. But skepticism goes both ways — to everybody but the fake skeptic. Sure, it might be all in your head. But so are your eyeballs — and the frontal lobe you used to write off the talking snake.

As such, I believe some of us are nuts. And I believe some of our ancestors made things up. But I also believe we are inter-dimensional beings. And sometimes our chemistry determines which dimension we live in most. Whether we go insane or touch reality during an NDE is the question. And I don’t believe God wanted it to be easy for us to get an answer.

Share

Subscribe now

One of the great ironies of our society is that if you’re “a schedule Nazi” you’re really great at running a schedule, if you’re “a cleanliness Nazi” you’re really great at cleaning things up, if you’re “a rule Nazi” you’re trusted to follow the rules, but if you’re just “a Nazi” people don’t think you should have a job.

If any of our ancestors were to be dropped into America today and just followed the lingo, they might be led to think that being “a Nazi” made you a superior person — the Master Race, even. But to my knowledge this is the first time anyone has been really good at everything except “being a good person.” A real insult would be saying “he doesn’t know how to run anything.” But we saved this term for “liberals” — the people who are allowed to run things, like California and the whole UK, into the ground.

For instance, nobody has ever been called “a liberal spender” without living on the edge of bankruptcy. If you got “a liberal education” it means you went bankrupt to not be educated. If you have “liberal values” it means you value everybody who lacks values. And if you “liberate a country,” well, it just means Americans blew it up. If anyone was to say “I’m liberalizing my schedule,” the only thing that would tell us is he probably won’t be on time for dinner. And somehow being “a liberal” is socially acceptable — respectable. According to HR, employable even.

I bring this up because I’ve been called a Nazi so many times it’s starting to not sting. And it should. After all, I really do believe in freedom of speech. I’m against brownshirts and collectivists and real bullies in general. I believe in real but limited suffrage, no drug-testing for the House and Senate, and Midnights by Taylor Swift. I believe in a well-regulated but not-too-encumbered capitalism, a totally-free pricing system, and the centerpiece of my existence is a long-haired Jew. In saner times this would get me branded as “a liberal” — and in most ages and places “a radical.” But today, because I believe in protecting a liberal system with a border, and not letting in too many people who either inbreed, or can’t read, or won’t follow the rules, I am now considered “a Nazi.”

The actual Nazis — who, by the way, would run any big city better than what we call “liberals” today — had many flaws, and even some diabolical ones. But turning absolutely every town they ever touched into a third-world ghetto isn’t one of them. And the big question today isn’t whether liberals are good and Nazis are bad. It’s whether Americans know what “good” and “bad” even mean.

When someone asks us whether someone is “good,” the first thing we ought to ask is, for what? For instance, did the city get cleaner and safer now that more guys like him moved in? In politics this might be a good start. And how are his children doing?

Also, is his wife happy? Is he good at his job? Are his words wholesome — life-giving, encouraging? Does he improve the general mood, or wreck it? Does he know the difference between someone who needs help and a professional victim? Does he take valid criticism and new information well? Can he handle his drink? Can he protect the people he loves? Does he know how to fix things — and messy situations? Is he able to explain how things work — and especially when they don’t? And does he help other people like this thrive, or does he hurt them?

In other words, the marks of being a “good person” aren’t whether you’re called a liberal or a Nazi. In the end they’re more like Paul’s qualifications for being a deacon.

Simply put, I want people like this to run our society, and I think there have to be rules to keep their opposites out of power. I would call these winners The Master Race (no matter their race) because everyone like this deserves to be in charge. I don’t know whether this makes me a Nazi, but I know it’s the main thing that keeps anyone from ruining their country.

And last I take comfort in the words of P.J. O’Rourke:

I have often been called a Nazi, and, although it is unfair, I don’t let it bother me. I don’t let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.

Yours,

-J

Share

Subscribe now

The whole point of Impractical Jokers is a few pranksters doing things, on purpose, which violate the norms of our society. This is what's known as comedy. In real life, the whole point of a border is keeping people out who violate the norms of our society on accident. This is what we know as “having a country.”

Now we all know that a country can be comical; but things get serious when too many people from too many countries start violating your norms willy-nilly. For instance, do Americans stand in line or crowd to the front? Do we throw trash in the garbage bins or on the street? How loudly can we play our music with the windows open? And can anybody park on the lawn?

Things get more uncomfortable when you ask, what age is an impregnable woman too young? And can you just follow one around if she's alone, or stare at her on the bus? Do you have to wash your hands before making a stranger a hot dog? And should people own actual dogs? And can you blast prayers at six in the morning from the top of a building? And do you have to hold it all in, or can you just shit on the street?

(Fooled you on that last one. In San Francisco almost anyone can fit in except Republicans).

Some other differences go well beyond laws and affect the norms. George Patton writes in his memoirs that when he visited the Sultan in Morocco, a leopard broke out of its cage and ran straight into the harem. A lot of screams were heard, and the Sultan took off. And when he came back, he told Patton (with a calm face) to not worry. It just got one of the concubines in the neck. The real wives were all safe, so they could carry on as usual.

This is the kind of thing that pisses Americans off, but it highlights a crucial difference between American and Arabian society. In 1942 Morocco, a man of eminence could pile up dozens of women of no eminence and sometimes they get bled to death by leopards. In modern America, a woman of no eminence can pile up men of eminence and bleed them dry on her own. This is what we refer to as “alimony” and “child support;” and if a man tries to escape the harem, we throw him in another one where the Sultan is his cellmate.

Thus so far from being against ethnic diversity, I’m for it — somewhere else. The great value of having other countries (and dare I say it: other states) is you can view them from a distance. And the chief benefit of viewing them from a distance is you can find out which things you want to do yourself and which things you want the cops to shoot at.

This is the conservative’s idea of diversity. It’s a plan where clear distinctions lie between “us” and “them” so we can delineate between the two and plan accordingly. And if you like this sort of thing, you believe deeply in Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The problem with the leftist’s diversity is that the diversity happens right at home, so by the time you realize you hate something, you’re stuck with it. Also you have to like it. This is the whole point of HR and DEI — to not let anyone at work say “I really support ICE.”

One country I’m really glad is “over there” is Great Britain — for the simple reason that the British will consider anybody “British.” And for the additional reason that if you disagree with who can be British in Britain you can end up in prison.

That’s why more people get arrested in Britain than in Russia for having opinions. It’s also why Mohammed is the most popular name in the country. And when Pakis started raping thousands of little girls, it’s the reason police swept the accusations under the rug. Simply put, Brits wanted to defend everything but Britishness — and that's why the United Arab Emirates won’t send any students to college in England. The UAE took one look at the radical Islamists in Oxford, and decided Oxford was too much like Mohammed to let the Islamic students back into Arabia.

Yesterday our forefathers would have burned the whole world because the British wanted to tax us too much. Today our forefathers would burn the whole world because the British tax their citizens to fund all the wrong things. I include here such laudable expenditures as disarming law-abiding citizens, hiding crime by foreigners, feeding terrorists and layabouts, making a joke out of God, and terrorizing the ethnically British. Sixty years ago the whole civilized world was allied against Soviet Russia. Today we have not just an interest, but a moral obligation to have the whole free world ally ourselves against the general ethos of Great Britain.

Whether Russia belongs on our team, in the age of China, is a fair question*. Whether the UK belongs on it without respecting themselves is obvious. A country should always question whether its allies are the kind of people who commit murder. But a country should never ally itself with a country in the middle of a suicide.

Yours,

-J

P.S. Just the other week Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain launched an attempt to free the Motherland from its leftist overlords and Islamic occupation.

I recommend watching the video, but below you’ll find a partial transcript, with beautiful passages such as,

Britain is not just an economy. Britain is not just an idea. Britain is not just a passport. Britain is a nation. Britain is a people: Our people.

And Restore Britain will never allow that to be erased. We will celebrate our Christian heritage and the identity that built and shaped this country. Responsibility, restraint, forgiveness, duty, and fairness. In short, a high-trust society. That will mean defending our culture. That will mean resisting the relentless creep of radical Islam. That will mean banning the burka, outlawing sharia law, outlawing cousin marriages, and reimposing our Christian-based rule of law.

This is how a man’s political party speaks. And I don't believe that anyone who feels differently about his homeland deserves a home. He goes on,

What is necessary will be incredibly painful. But for the first time in a very long time, voters will have genuine alternative, which is truthful with them about the scale of what now has to be done.

The first priority is to control who comes to our country, and more importantly, who stays in our country. Restore Britain will not just stop mass immigration; we will reverse it.

Every single illegal migrant will be securely detained, and then deported. The message will be unrelenting: If you are in this country without permission, you will be removed. For the foreseeable future, far more people must leave Britain than arrive.

If a foreign national is unable to speak English, lives in social housing, claims benefits, refuses to work, fails to integrate, commits crime, or even actively hates our way of life and wishes to do us harm, then they must leave, or be made to leave.

Sounds like poetry to me.

Restore Britain will make our communities safe again for women and children. That I promise you. If that means millions go, then millions go.

We’re constantly told that the economy needs vast swaths of low-skilled migrants. We know that’s simply not true. What we need is to get millions of healthy Brits back into work - a radical overhaul of how welfare is delivered. Protecting those in genuine need, but not funding healthy shirkers to live off the back of hard working men and women. If you can work, you must work. It really is that simple.

And furthermore,

The state has definitively become the enemy of the people. Restore Britain will burn away suffocating taxes on work and enterprise. We will slash unnecessary regulation. We will dismantle bloated quangos and the overbearing HR culture. We must crush parasitic Britain. We will restore long-term, stable, logical policy, so that business can plan and invest and grow again.

No country which refuses these principles deserves to be safe. No person who refuses these principles is worthy of life. What Rupert Lowe signifies isn’t just right vs left. In the lines laid out starkly above, it is smart vs stupid, light vs darkness, honor vs dishonor, and life vs suicide — in the once-upon-a-time greatest, once-upon-a-time brightest, once-most-beautiful country the world ever saw. And I believe it is our duty, not just as Americans, but as free citizens of any country, to make life harder on any government on “our team” which refuses these principles. And yes, that means I want us to invade Canada.

Despite what I said above, the U.K. — and specifically England — still represents to me a beacon of wholesomeness, manners, genius, dignity, character, style, and progress absolutely unparalleled in the history of mankind. It means C.S. Lewis and Winston Churchill; Samuel Johnson and Thomas Babington Macaulay; Winnie the Pooh, Harry Potter, Big Ben, and Queen Victoria.

Speaking of England evokes images from Pride and Prejudice. When I hear England I see Edmund Burke in the House of Commons. It means winding, cobblestone streets in ancient alleys; the cozy, charming countryside hedges and villas; the desperate fight against King Louis XIV and Nazi Germany; Shakespeare and Charles Dickens**; Greensleeves and Scarborough Fair; Edward Gibbon, Francis Bacon, G.K. Chesterton, and J.R.R. Tolkien.

To me, England is the grandfatherly prose of Orwell and the common sense of Locke. England means Adam Smith and David Hume. Lord Clive conquering the earth*** and Lord Nelson ruling the seas. The tremendous gift of civil liberty. The desperate fight against autocracy and popery. England, to anyone who really loves it, means a long history, stretching back to Roman times, through horror and desperation and Viking incursions, giving us a link to the past — a foothold in time; a character, still evident but fading, in the manners and principles of our nation.

To say I hate England would be wrong. The truth is I am in love with England. And because I’m in love with England, watching what’s happened to it in the last 50 years has made me almost ready to nuke it.

*At this point I don’t even recommend an alliance with Russia. White American men are the most right-wing they’ve been in generations. White American women are probably the worst they’ve ever been. Russia has killed off their men and has millions of the best women on the planet up for grabs.

I don’t want the US and Russia to make some kind of a trade pact or an anti-Chinese NATO. At this point I just want the US and Russia to get married.

**Theodore Dalrymple, the most eloquent (and probably sharpest) critic of British degeneracy, writes, in Our Culture: What’s Left of It,

This scene takes me back to Pyongyang. I was in the enormous and almost deserted square in front of the Great People’s Study House—all open spaces in Pyongyang remain deserted unless filled with parades of hundreds of thousands of human automata—when a young Korean slid surreptitiously up to me and asked, ‘Do you speak English?’

An electric moment: for in North Korea, unsupervised contact between a Korean and a foreigner is utterly unthinkable, as unthinkable as shouting, ‘Down with Big Brother!’

‘Yes,’ I replied.

‘I am a student at the Foreign Languages Institute. Reading Dickens and Shakespeare is the greatest, the only pleasure of my life.’

It was the most searing communication I have ever received in my life. We parted immediately afterward and of course will never meet again. For him, Dickens and Shakespeare (which the regime permitted him to read with quite other ends in view) guaranteed the possibility not just of freedom but of truly human life itself. Orwell and Huxley had the imagination to understand why—unlike me, who had to go to Pyongyang to find out.

What Britain represents to me isn’t just the place that made Dickens and Shakespeare. It also means the people which made Shakespeare and Dickens mean home.

Subscribe now

Share

***Who is Lord Clive? And why should you care?

Macaulay writes, in his short biography of Clive,

We have always thought it strange that, while the history of the Spanish empire in America is familiarly known to all the nations of Europe, the great actions of our countrymen in the East should, even among ourselves, excite little interest.

Every schoolboy knows who imprisoned Montezuma, and who strangled Atahualpa. But we doubt whether one in ten, even among English gentlemen of highly cultivated minds, can tell who won the battle of Buxar, who perpetrated the massacre of Patna, whether Sujah Dowlah ruled in Oude or in Travancore, or whether Holkar was a Hindoo, or a Mussulman. Yet the victories of Cortes were gained over savages who had no letters, who were ignorant of the use of metals, who had not broken in a single animal to labour, who wielded no better weapons than those which could be made out of sticks, flints, and fish-bones, who regarded a horse-soldier as a monster, half man and half beast, who took a harquebusier for a sorcerer, able to scatter the thunder and lightning of the skies. The people of India, when we subdued them, were ten times as numerous as the Americans whom the Spaniards vanquished, and were at the same time quite as highly civilised as the victorious Spaniards. They had reared cities larger and fairer than Saragossa or Toledo, and buildings more beautiful and costly than the cathedral of Seville. They could show bankers richer than the richest firms of Barcelona or Cadiz, viceroys whose splendour far surpassed that of Ferdinand the Catholic, myriads of cavalry and long trains of artillery which would have astonished the Great Captain.

It might have been expected, that every Englishman who takes any interest in any part of history would be curious to know how a handful of his countrymen, separated from their home by an immense ocean, subjugated, in the course of a few years, one of the greatest empires in the world. Yet, unless we greatly err, this subject is, to most readers, not only insipid, but positively distasteful.

Macaulay blamed historians for being so boring — and he corrected this mistake by writing one of the most fun, fascinating, and shocking biographies ever penned by a Victorian.

You can buy all of Macaulay’s works on Amazon for $1.99.

Emerson once wrote,

A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.

So I decided to keep these ones before I forgot them.

Yours,

-J

To infinity and benumbed.

This week I learned about Scream 7, Saw 10, and Final Destination: Bloodlines, which is probably the sixth. Then Terrifier 4. Evil Dead: Burn, which I think is film five. 28 Days Later 3 and I Know What You Did Last Summer 4. The sixth Insidious comes next, and The Exorcist 6 for some reason in a Mike Flanagan edition. Then last in this illustrious but incomprehensive ensemble we have Hellraiser 11, Friday the 13th 12, and freaking Halloween 13.

What disturbs me most about these films isn’t just that fat cats keep making them. It’s that people think they’re still interesting enough to keep buying them. Here we have a marriage between absolute degeneracy and the corporate; between terror and routine; between psychopathic outbreak and tradition. I’m not so sure Americans are the first people in history to be so deranged; but we are certainly the first people to ever be so boring about it.

Strength and sociability.

There are two kinds of people who “don’t like to talk about politics.”

1. People who don’t trust you.

2. People living with a series of half-baked opinions, untested hypotheses, irrational prejudices, and a fragile ego. In other words, people who don’t trust themselves.

Bad and worse.

Voltaire writes, in his Philosophical Dictionary, that there are two butlers at the door of a house, and you ask them to speak to the master. He’s not home, says the first one. The second butler says he’s home, but he’s in the back rooms spreading bunk facts and making false promises and all kinds of weapons and poisons. You ask why, and he says, to hurt and kill off the people doing the things He Himself planned. The atheist is the first porter, and the second is obviously a Calvinist.

The big question here is pretty straight-forward. If you were God, which servant would you be most offended by? The one who says you don’t exist? Or the one who makes you look like a dick?

All faithful take note: no matter our gist, it is we who are always in danger of the latter.

The barren.

The Institute for Family Studies reports that Republican states are gaining kids while Democratic states are losing them.

It should come as no surprise that when fatness is preferable to fitness, and borders are racist, and winning is selfish, and loving your ethnicity is fascist, and telling the facts is hateful, and the land you're living on is stolen — that when families are both cumbersome and expendable; when marriage vows are easily broken; when sadness is fought off with a prescription; when criminals and losers are martyrs and heroes; and death is inevitable but God is irrelevant — it should come as no surprise, I say, that these regions fail to produce children.

The people who have no reason to live are the same people who have no reason to breed.

Tug of war.

"You shouldn't be selfish” is itself a form of selfishness. We want others to live for us and not for themselves.

Poor and rich.

People who are into politics to save the world: miserable.
People who are into politics to make fun of people: totally fulfilled.

Pale blue God.

A.W. Pink writes, in The Sovereignty of God,

Our obedience has profited God nothing. […] He was perfectly blessed in Himself before the first creature was called into being. And what are all the creatures of His hands unto Him even now? Let Scripture again make answer: Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? (Isa 40:15-18).

— a confusion of the bigness of God with His concern: a total about-face to the God-man who cries at funerals, who floods the whole world when He gets angry, who got brutally murdered in an act of heroism, and dictates much of the Old Testament in the voice of an angry judge, a bereaved parent, and a scorned lover.

Pink here almost sounds like the atheists and other “deep thinkers” who say “the universe is so big that you basically don’t matter” — forgetting that the man who regrets this fact, and the mother who nursed him, are just as much “the universe” as Betelgeuse and the amoeba.

Subscribe now

Share

Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall is probably the most embarrassing book I’ve ever recommended. And it was embarrassing mainly because at the time I recommended it I’d never actually read it.

This is the problem with recommending books. If you’re 80 or 90% done with anything you have a pretty good idea what’s in it. The problem with Decline and Fall was that it was so funny I started recommending it at 30%. I’d already been talking books with a coworker, and I decided to tell her everything I knew about Waugh. There was only one problem, and it was that I didn't know anything about Waugh. And a hundred times worse than this, it was that one of my co-worker’s parents is African.

If you’ve read Decline and Fall, you know this is a big problem.

What I didn’t know 30% of the way through was that one of Waugh’s characters thinks black people are stupid ooga-boogas and jungle-bunnies. And when did I find this out? On a Saturday morning, right after making the recommendation to a black person on Friday. Thus the next two days were spent biting my nails — hoping, both awake and asleep, that my coworker didn’t give a shit about my opinion.

I was happy to find on Monday morning that my gushing appraisal was underwhelming. The book remained unpurchased and unread, at least long enough for me to tell her to skip it. She thanked me, I promised myself I'd never recommend anything I hadn’t finished yet, and I bring this up today to prove that I don’t always keep all my promises.

What I'm getting at is, I’m a hundred pages into Catch-22 and I’m giving it my full recommendation. Like Waugh’s Decline and Fall, the humor is sharp and ridiculous. Also like Waugh, the prose is so fresh that it doesn’t matter what Heller says so long as he keeps saying it.

Is the book uplifting? Is it wise? Is it inspiring? I’m sorry to say on all counts, absolutely not. It is a book of such incomparable horseshit — such random, half-baked, almost-incoherent absurdity, full of lechers and liars, psychos and racists, cowards and hypocrites, hypochondriacs and drunks — that I’m recommending it here against the plain dictates of experience and morality. For the first 50 pages I couldn’t even tell who was who, and what they were supposed to be doing, or if they were even doing anything at all. Once I got 70 pages in, I decided to re-read the whole thing, and was rewarded with exactly zero further understanding — just a roaring, soaring roller-coaster of scandal and idiocy.

Thus far there's no discernible plot, and it’s so good that I don’t even care. So if you’re reading this 50 years in the future, and you’re, say, 200 pages ahead of me, and Heller says something so rotten and tasteless that you’re wondering how could somebody like J do this to me, I remind you that I’m only a hundred pages in, and thus far it’s a winner.

What is Catch-22 about? So far, just some coward named Yossarian trying to not fly planes in World War 2, and the completely deranged cast of characters he runs into mostly while not flying. "Catch-22,” the catchphrase rule for which the book is named, is probably the least interesting joke of the book, and, thus far, the “plot” doesn't even revolve around it. I just keep going back for passages like this,

Colonel Cargill, General Peckem’s troubleshooter, was a forceful, ruddy man. Before the war he had been an alert, hard-hitting, aggressive marketing executive. He was a very bad marketing executive. Colonel Cargill was so awful a marketing executive that his services were much sought after by firms eager to establish losses for tax purposes. Throughout the civilized world, from Battery Park to Fulton Street, he was known as a dependable man for a fast tax write-off. His prices were high, for failure often did not come easily. He had to start at the top and work his way down, and with sympathetic friends in Washington, losing money was no simple matter. It took months of hard work and careful misplanning. A person misplaced, disorganized, miscalculated, overlooked everything and opened every loophole, and just when he thought he had it made, the government gave him a lake or a forest or an oilfield and spoiled everything. Even with such handicaps, Colonel Cargill could be relied on to run the most prosperous enterprise into the ground. He was a self-made man who owed his lack of success to nobody.

If this is your kind of thing, Catch-22 is full of it (and I mean that in both ways). Heller writes about a selfish sourpuss named Doc Deneeka,

[H]e was a very warm, compassionate man who never stopped feeling sorry for himself.

And of winning an award for marching drills,

[T]he idea of pennants as prizes was absurd. No money went with them, no class privileges. Like Olympic medals and tennis trophies, all they signified was that the owner had done something of no benefit to anyone more capably than everyone else.

Probably too logical in the end, and missing the fact that mastering something and ranking yourself high are pleasures in themselves — no matter how “inconsequential.” But this is the thing about comedy. It’s the most fun when somebody takes themselves too seriously.

There are other passages less sharp than these: beautiful, flowing cascades of nouns and adjectives and verbs that you want to read over again just for the hell of it. Such as this passage about a hospital patient killing time,

Havermeyer had grown very proficient at shooting field mice at night with the gun he had stolen from the dead man in Yossarian’s tent. His bait was a bar of candy and he would presight in the darkness as he sat waiting for the nibble with a finger of his other hand inside a loop of the line he had run from the frame of his mosquito net to the chain of the unfrosted light bulb overhead. The line was taut as a banjo string, and the merest tug would snap it on and blind the shivering quarry in a blaze of light. Havermeyer would chortle exultantly as he watched the tiny mammal freeze and roll its terrified eyes about in frantic search of the intruder. Havermeyer would wait until the eyes fell upon his own and then he laughed aloud and pulled the trigger at the same time, showering the rank, furry body all over the tent with a reverberating crash and dispatching its timid soul back to his or her Creator.

And this passage about a lecher:

Women killed Hungry Joe. His response to them as sexual beings was one of frenzied worship and idolatry. They were lovely, satisfying, maddening manifestations of the miraculous, instruments of pleasure too powerful to be measured, too keen to be endured, and too exquisite to be intended for employment by base, unworthy man.

Something any healthy man can relate to. And in my favorite chapter so far, the one about Major Major, this long (but perfect) passage,

Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.

Major Major had three strikes on him from the beginning—his mother, his father and Henry Fonda, to whom he bore a sickly resemblance almost from the moment of his birth. Long before he even suspected who Henry Fonda was, he found himself the subject of unflattering comparisons everywhere he went. Total strangers saw fit to deprecate him, with the result that he was stricken early with a guilty fear of people and an obsequious impulse to apologize to society for the fact that he was not Henry Fonda. It was not an easy task for him to go through life looking something like Henry Fonda, but he never once thought of quitting, having inherited his perseverance from his father, a lanky man with a good sense of humor.

Major Major’s father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce.

And this psychologically true passage in the same chapter,

Major Major’s father had a Calvinist’s faith in predestination and could perceive distinctly how everyone’s misfortunes but his own were expressions of God’s will.

I could add more passages, more quotes, and rant more about this filthy and ridiculous book — but what’s the point? Little I can say about it would be better than what Heller has already said. As such, at this point — I remind you, about one-hundred pages in — I give it my recommendation. At least before I run into something which totally ruins it, and have to apologize in a whole other essay.

Yours,

-J

March 2nd, 2026

Share

P.S. The last “other favorite passage” of mine.

Yossarian was a lead bombardier who had been demoted because he no longer gave a damn whether he missed or not. He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt, and his only mission each time he went up was to come down alive.

The men had loved flying behind Yossarian, who used to come barreling in over the target from all directions and every height, climbing and diving and twisting and turning so steeply and sharply that it was all the pilots of the other five planes could do to stay in formation with him, leveling out only for the two or three seconds it took for the bombs to drop and then zooming off again with an aching howl of engines, and wrenching his flight through the air so violently as he wove his way through the filthy barrages of flak that the six planes were soon flung out all over the sky like prayers, each one a pushover for the German fighters, which was just fine with Yossarian, for there were no German fighters any more and he did not want any exploding planes near his when they exploded.

Only when all the Sturm und Drang had been left far behind would he tip his flak helmet back wearily on his sweating head and stop barking directions to McWatt at the controls, who had nothing better to wonder about at a time like that than where the bombs had fallen.

“Bomb bay clear,” Sergeant Knight in the back would announce.

“Did we hit the bridge?” McWatt would ask.

“I couldn’t see, sir, I kept getting bounced around back here pretty hard and I couldn’t see. Everything’s covered with smoke now and I can’t see.”

“Hey, Aarfy, did the bombs hit the target?”

“What target?” Captain Aardvaark, Yossarian’s plump, pipe-smoking navigator would say from the confusion of maps he had created at Yossarian’s side in the nose of the ship. “I don’t think we’re at the target yet. Are we?”

“Yossarian, did the bombs hit the target?”

“What bombs?” answered Yossarian, whose only concern had been the flak.

Subscribe now

Share

Despite this, all moral weight here seems to lean against abortion, mostly because you can't tell a pro-choice woman you wish she'd been aborted. They consider it bad manners; and in all my experience dealing with people they consider it a wish they'd been murdered.

If this is the case, a morally consistent response from them would be “thank you.” After all we broke with our ideals so that they don't have to break with theirs. But they do break with their ideals by objecting, and they do it just as angrily as if they were babies, or Catholics. The whole thing is backward and it makes you despair for humanity — or at least for those of us who have to deal with leftists.

Case in point: a short while ago Tomi Lahren, a blonde known only for being hot and yelling at leftists, got fired by her conservative network for being pro-choice. Despite remaining on the payroll, she proceeded to sue Glenn Beck for (please don't laugh) wrongful termination.

What this means is she claimed to be pro-choice and she wasn’t. She's pro-choice if the choice is being made by a woman. She's against choice if you're her boss. She says she's for liberty when she meant she's against life; and she says you can take a life but only if the life is your baby’s. This is what we refer to in the West as “progress.”

There are of course other ways of getting rid of children. One of Moses’ most controversial laws says, in effect, that if a kid’s so rotten that his parents can't stand him, they can take him to the council and the council can throw rocks at him.

Somehow this seems worse than abortion when it's a million times better. With abortion you have no idea who you're killing. In ancient Israel you knew exactly who you were killing and you hated him. With abortion the child is 100% innocent. In Israel the child was probably guilty. I think they call this an "honor killing.” If this is the case they ought to call an abortion a dishonorable killing*.

Moses' law is fair because it's almost impossible for any parent to come to this point. Everyone knows there are faces only a mother could love. But there are also souls that only a mother could love. And there are souls that even a mother could hate. Moses allowed the person who's least likely to kill a child a right to end the matter and save all of us before it got out of hand. We, on the other hand, call this “barbaric” while letting mothers kill children they're most likely to love.

Yours,
-J

April 13th, 2017

Share

Editor’s Update, 2026: Some of you are reading this and thinking, “J approves of honor killings?!” And to this I would answer no — I merely prefer them to our policy right now. No idea how anyone can be pro-psychopath and anti-baby, but this is the world we live in. Democrats’ motherly instincts are for absolutely everybody but the infants.

As such, I’m not even pro-life. I’m pro-chance. When it comes to executing criminals and lunatics, I’m pro-death. Moses left this up to somebody’s parents. I think it would be better — and in fact, so did our ancestors — to put the death penalty up as an option, and leave it up to a jury.

This leaves a fun question: who would I send on a one-way ticket to meet Jesus? I would expand the death penalty to include all kidnappers, murderers, rapists, child-molesters, robbers, pimps, pornographers, anyone who mutilates the genitalia of children, money launderers, dealers of meth and coke and opiates, doctors who run pill mills, scientists and marketers who lie or hide information about dangerous chemicals and pharmaceuticals, drug mules and coyotes, people who sell national secrets to other countries, anyone who retaliates against legitimate whistleblowers, any public official who refuses to protect the border, career protesters and paid rioters, and people who commit flagrant welfare fraud.

Despite this list, in the light of history I think of myself as lenient on this issue — almost liberal, even. Plutarch writes of Draco, the ruler from whom we got the term draconian, in his Life of Solon,

Under the Draconian code almost any kind of offence was liable to the death penalty, so that even those convicted of idleness were executed, and those who stole fruit or vegetables suffered the same punishment as those who committed sacrilege or murder. […]

Draco himself, when he was once asked why he had decreed the death penalty for the great majority of offences, replied that he considered the minor ones deserved it, and so for the major ones no heavier punishment was left.

Not that crazy of an idea when you see a fatso leaving the shopping cart on the curb.

Still I wonder if Draco’s code was (effectively) more lenient than ours anyway. To prove this, try convicting anyone via jury for jaywalking when death is on the menu — a stance for which many cops would turn a blind eye, his peers would likely rule not guilty, and a man’s neighbors would be likely to falsify records or hide evidence. In the end, extreme rigor and extreme liberty meet. Where almost everyone is on the chopping block, lady justice isn’t just blind on purpose — we find she’s also deaf and dumb.

*My dad refused to fire phosphorous shells on the Viet-Cong because they were sleeping — he passed the honor off to another yahoo on ship. How much worse, in every sense, is cutting a poor baby to pieces in-utero? With the former you can compare it to stealing candy from a baby. But what are you supposed to compare the latter to?

My take on killing the sleeping Viet-Cong is slightly different from my dad’s, and coincides more closely with the Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz. In 1967 he was asked what it felt like to take a human life. His answer: “I wouldn't know. I've only ever killed communists.”

Subscribe now

Share

I really, deeply, truly believe that somewhere around one third of the country, under psychiatric scrutiny, could be classified as clinically insane. I also believe that around 100% of Americans would agree with this statement, even though 0% of them would volunteer themselves for the loony bin. So before you start clapping, please see whether you're on the list.

I would include here people who think the earth is flat and roundness is “a conspiracy,” who believe that blowhards like Pat Robertson and Robert Morris speak for God; who think men can turn into women, and that anyone who disagrees in public should be subject to penalties. I would add anyone who thinks Charlie Kirk was murdered by TPUSA so that Erica Kirk and JD Vance could have an affair; and anyone who thinks Jewish people are God's favorites, incapable of pissing Him off, and that silencing all their critics is the main way to prove you’re on “the right side of history.”

Next is anyone who thinks The Sermon on the Mount should be on courthouses instead of the Ten Commandments, and that doing so would not only be “more Christian,” but less dangerous to the public health than anarchy, or communism. And why stop there? I'd add people who put criminal aliens in the same category as Anne Frank, and think Elon Musk, the Jew-loving libertarian, is a Nazi, and Donald Trump is “literally Hitler.”

These not-entirely uncommon positions go well beyond plain ignorance and rank up there with hearing voices and seeing gremlins; and if I had the choice, I'd strip them of the vote and even put some of them in psych wards. This would clean up the country significantly, and let us get back to discussing matters more serious than whether Somalis are more American than Republicans, and whether Emmanuel Macron’s wife is actually a dude.

Or at least it would, if it wasn’t for the second third of Americans who are just stupid. Republicans like to call these people “Democrats”* and Democrats like to call these people “Republicans,” but the reality is these people are what everyone usually refers to as “swing voters.” These are people who overwhelmingly agree that an open border is bad; and then, when you try to send people back across the border, The Pew Research Center says they can’t stand that either.

These are people who hate inflation, so they vote for the guy who wants tariffs. They want to bring manufacturing back to America, but they want it without starting inflationary trade wars. They’re worried about the national budget, but they hate it when you cut spending. They can’t stand rioters running loose, and cry when you send the national guard to stop them.

In short, the swing voter is somebody who can’t see pros and cons. He has probably never heard of pros and cons. He doesn't know what “a tradeoff” is, and every time he votes, he thinks he elected a savior, only to find out, four years later, that the hero he elected is actually (to him these days) a villain. He has no intelligible philosophy, no workable ethic, no cohesive system of law other than “this hurts and I hate it and now I want the other thing.” Thus whoever’s in charge is on the news. And to him, whoever's in the news becomes the national bogeyman. He runs one way and stubs his toe. He turns the other way, and falls off a cliff.

Is he completely without merit? Not entirely, I would argue. The great virtue of the swing voter is his humility: the ability to say “I was wrong” and change course. The big problem with swing voters is they’re always wrong. And to prove this, I refer you to their own opinions — enshrined and totally contradicted, ad nauseam, in what they refer to as “their voting record.”

This is, of course, when humility goes wrong. When humility goes right, it means people who are not only open to new information, but who reevaluate their positions in the light of new evidence and questioning. And that means they believe in asking questions and being questioned. They consider it a right, even — a public service. They call it “freedom of speech,” and know “free speech” doesn't mean joining Al Qaeda and making pornography.

The real qualification to not being a psycho or a dumbass means not having a giant ego. It means recognizing your vulnerability to short-sightedness, ignorance, laziness, prejudice and provincialism, half-baked faiths, blind spots, ego trips, and sacred cows. And that’s the irony of being self-aware. This last remaining hope, not just of American civilization, but of any civilization, is the only portion of the public which doesn’t fully believe in itself.

When this goes right, a man becomes a beacon of light — standing tall and bright in the middle of a hurricane. When he changes his position he merely adds to it, refining it, correcting its course. And as he grows so does his sense of balance, and grace, and nuance**. But when humility goes wrong, he flip-flops from one extreme to the next and becomes the hurricane itself — and gets referred to in the news as a swing voter.

Yours,

-J

Share

P.S. I suspect that many of the things we blame on faulty brains may be a result of their working too well.

For instance, the belief that Donald Trump, on the verge of arrest after the 2020 elections, was playing 4D chess, and that random clerks and garbagemen were privy to a host of insider information, and we should go to Washington DC and “trust the plan,” was probably a front for extreme feelings of powerlessness and ignorance — a desperate reach not only for hope, but for the dream that we, the puny and the clueless, could actually understand the world around us. And that somebody smart was actually in control of it.

White Savior Complex ranks even crazier than this, in my book: a desperate need to not only love and care for somebody (we see this most often with childless ladies and rejects) but to feel loved and needed yourself. Thus the desperate round-the-world search not only for somebody to stand above and pity, but the half-psychotic quest for an enemy — an enemy whose crimes you fabricate, against all evidence, and the “victim” whose flaws you deny, to the point of obliviousness. “Trust the plan” was the crazy belief in somebody else. “Black Lives Matter” was the crazy belief in yourself. Especially when you yourself were actually the one in need of help.

The really big question here isn’t whether these people are crazy, though. I think it’s pretty clear that people with real needs and working brains are capable of believing and doing worse things than lunatics. The real question is, am I lying to myself in some way like they are? And if I am, am I brave enough to see it?

*On top of the fact that I believe one third of Americans are bonkers, I really, truly, and unsarcastically feel that there are smart Democrats out there. And like all smart people, these are defined most by the questions they ask.

For instance,

• Is it okay for the President to deport illegal aliens, who came from Mexico, to war-torn Sudan? Or to put them in a Salvadoran prison without a trial?

• Do non-citizen immigrants like Mahmoud Khalil have a right to free speech? Or does the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens? Can foreigners be detained indefinitely by ICE?

• Or, why is the President pardoning a bunch of ponzi-schemers and granny-scammers?

• Is it a good precedent to send troops into the Capitol? Wasn’t that the beginning of the end for Rome?

• Why is Trump saying the Epstein files are fake after campaigning on their release? Wasn't he aware of them during his first term? And why did Congress have to force him to release them? And how do we know the redacted names aren’t public officials?

• Should the President, the plaintiff in a lawsuit he filed before taking office, be able to decide whether he gets paid 230 million dollars — of taxpayer money?

• Is it morally wrong to question our relationship with Israel? Is criticizing things Jews currently do really the same thing as anti-Semitism?

• Didn’t Trump campaign on reducing inflation — not making it worse?

• How can we get rid of income taxes? If tariffs are to bring jobs home, how can that be a stable tax revenue once we don’t import nearly as much?

• How can Trump pay $2000 to each American from the tariff revenue if the tariff revenue is way less than the payout?

• Isn’t spending this recklessly dangerous for the country? (To be fair, neither party really cares about this).

• Is our beef with Venezuela really about drugs when most of our citizens are killed by drugs from Mexico?

These to me are all useful and legitimate questions, and, quite frankly, I think Republicans who don’t ask them are silly. And I wish the people who asked these kinds of questions were in charge of the Democrats. But we all know they aren’t. And instead of such respectable pests, we’re left with the people who ask whether it’s okay to have a border, whether cops should be allowed to shoot back at criminals, and whether anyone can define “a woman.”

**How important is nuance? Nietzsche writes, in Beyond Good and Evil,

In our youthful years we respect and despise without that art of nuance which constitutes the best thing we gain from life, and, as is only fair, we have to pay dearly for having assailed men and things with Yes and No in such a fashion. Everything is so regulated that the worst of all tastes, the taste for the unconditional, is cruelly misused and made a fool of until a man learns to introduce a little art into his feelings and even to venture trying the artificial: as genuine artists of life do. The anger and reverence characteristic of youth seem to allow themselves no peace until they have falsified men and things in such a way that they can vent themselves on them – youth as such is something that falsifies and deceives.

Later, when the youthful soul, tormented by disappointments, finally turns suspiciously on itself, still hot and savage even in its suspicion and pangs of conscience: how angry it is with itself now, how it impatiently rends itself, how it takes revenge for its long self-delusion, as if it had blinded itself deliberately! During this transition one punishes oneself by distrusting one’s feelings; one tortures one’s enthusiasm with doubts, indeed one feels that even a good conscience is a danger, as though a good conscience were a screening of oneself and a sign that one’s subtler honesty had grown weary; and above all one takes sides, takes sides on principle, against ‘youth’. – A decade later: and one grasps that all this too – was still youth!

Subscribe now

Share

Probably the biggest insult leveled at a grown man — other than being a liar, or a weenie — is that he’s a dad. Do your jokes suck? Then those would be dad jokes. Are you a fat piece of shit? That would be due to a dad-bod.

If you dress like a dad, it means beige shorts with tube socks and sandals. If you listen to dad rock, it means a band that hasn't made anything good in decades, and probably because they died from an extreme case of osteoporosis, or dementia. And if they survived, they look stupid now like Rod Stewart and Julian Casablancas. Simply put, they’ve either been wearing the same thing for 20 years, or are 80 years old and trying too hard to dress like 20 year-olds. And they usually have a dad-bod.

The great irony of this insult is it’s a testament to the opposite. It is we, the dads, who are the only people on the planet charming and virile enough to have gotten anyone pregnant. Some of us have done it five times. Some of us (in more dignified countries) have done it with four wives. Some of us have been so sexy that we have to pay six women money every month. (This last part, of course, is only [partially] braggable if you can afford it).

I would argue that, so far from being an insult, a dad-body is the body you have that convinces a woman to carry your baby. A dad joke is the joke that makes her snort out her Coke in a restaurant. A dad band is the band you play in the car when you’re on your way to second-base.

Do I dress like a dad? That should be because I’m about to become one — again. And any man who can convince a woman to do anything as crazy as putting on a dress, finding a priest, and pledging her whole life to you, no matter how shitty you actually are, should be teaching master-classes on the art of charm and persuasion. No apologizing for the state of his jokes: I propose that at the very least they’re good enough.

The counter-argument to this is that somewhere around 80% of all men globally make babies, and in the US, at our peak during the Baby Boom, around 79% of all people ended up married. This, as you might guess, is more a testament to women’s stupidity or desperation than man’s usefulness or charm — especially since we can see the great majority of men, we don't want to be like any of them, and around half of all marriages currently end in divorce. But this still reinforces my original point. Most women, good taste or bad, still choose to make these men fathers, year after year, and there’s no more reliable marker than this.

Gen Z seems more sensible on this issue. They refer to every man who’s fat and embarrassing not as a dad, but an unc. This is still an outright disrespect for their elders (and maybe their elders should try being respectable first). But this shifts the whole gist away from fatherhood and pictures an irresponsible old boob who’s as unsexy as our relatives but hasn’t necessarily made any whoopie. An uncle doesn’t even have to be married. He could be living in your grandma’s basement. He could be in jail.

To make fun of your dad is to make fun of yourself. A dad is where you came from. He’s the one who bought you the clothes you think are so cool. He either trains you right or screws you over. To shift the focus from your dad to your uncle isn’t just more respectful. It’s more egotistical. You can fall close to the tree and land softly. You can pick a man to marry and feel like you have good taste.

Another reason I respect Gen Z more than the Millennials. They seem to have more respect for themselves.

Yours,

-J

February 3rd, 2026

Share

Subscribe now

Another batch of homespun thoughts for you.

Yours,

-J

January 29th, 2026

Empire and Shire.

The great aim of politics is to make things so safe that people get engrossed in their own personal, private worlds. But once people get engrossed in their own personal worlds, they lose the desire and ability to really practice politics. The Empire creates the Shire, and the success of the Shire breaks up the Empire.

Prosperity or equality.

There are only two ways to stop illegal immigration into a prosperous country. The first is to use violence and the threat of violence — a sealed border and deportations by force. The second is to let people in until the quality of life decreases so nobody wants to come in anymore.

If you don’t choose the first, you choose the second.

Carte blanche.

Everyone is fighting a battle you know nothing about.

Yes, and when we give the public a free pass to kick us, to embarrass us, to let us down, we add a million to the list.

Man’s best friend.

People love dogs because they're always happy to see you, subsist on practically garbage, accept a scolding or a kicking with grace, and never imply their owners are boring, or selfish, or stupid, or rude.

When a man loves dogs and hates people, he shows what he wants from people but was unwilling to be to anyone else first. A dog both flatters and shames his owner. The dog-lover runs from what he hates while being it.

Forward and back.

History is just as surprising as the future. Both are a giant void, and you never know what you’re going to find.

Bad guy, right words.

It doesn't matter who truth comes from. Whoever speaks truth to me, in that moment, is my benefactor.

It is more important to be right with the wrong people than to be wrong with the right people.

Adam? Where are you?

It’s easier to do Bible study with your family in the morning. By the evening you've been seen eating too many apples, and are ashamed to see God (or anyone who knows him) face-to-face.

In the morning you're innocent; by night you feel naked.

A hell of a trade, or a trade from hell?

The bigger your business, the further you trade. The further you trade, the more things you put up with.

Diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance (to the extreme) may not always be the creeds of the international businessman, but they’re always his essence. To make the most money he has to subvert not only his tastes and convictions, but those of his employees — and eventually those of his government.

Chiaroscuro.

What are good and evil? Great charity can only be expressed in great poverty, great mercy in great wrongdoing, great heroism in great villainy, and great solutions in great perplexity.

God creates light to outshine darkness. God creates Satan — the great district attorney — so we can know Jesus, the great public defender. Pain was the only way to show the joy of His inner being. All suffering for His children is temporary. The end result of this whole struggle is ecstasy. The depths were created so we could scale the highest mountains.

God vs Man.

The question of Calvinism vs Armenianism — in other words, whether we choose salvation or God chooses us — is ultimately a failure to understand Buddhism.

Every man is interconnected, either by his senses, his memory, his imagination, or a long chain of events, with much of the universe. A man can’t walk without the floor, so the floor is (in a sense) him walking. A man can’t judge a painting without the light and the painting, so in a sense, the sun and the painting are him judging. What does he eat? Grain. So the grain is part of him eating. Where does he sleep? A bed. So the bed is part of him sleeping.

A man has no choice to be anything without other things. And a man has no choice to be saved without a savior. Both must act to be what they are — and what the Calvinists and Arminians fight about is which of them is most irrelevant.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Love it, hate it, build it, break it, catch it, lose it, grab it, drop it.

Miss it and kiss it.

Size it up,

try it out,

tinker with it and then switch it around.

Go somewhere nice and then leave it.

Lose yourself in a person and then forget them.

Cry about something one day and the next day make fun of it.

The central feature of all life is change. Those who accept the sovereignty of God must accept the world we were given — and then thank Him for giving us the power to reject it. We weren't just born to say thank you. We were also born to say no thank you.

And wisdom is knowing which to do when.

Passing the buck.

Ogden Nash once wrote,

He drinks because she scolds, he thinks;
She thinks she scolds because he drinks;
And neither will admit what’s true,
That he’s a sot and she’s a shrew.

There are people who have problems and people who are problems. The latter usually portray themselves as the former.

Warm or cold?

How can anyone admire something without loathing something else? “Do not judge” means “do not love.”

Yours,

-J

Share

Subscribe now

White women have always been my favorite; but times have changed since I was playing the field, and now the big question a young man has to ask, when chasing a beautiful, college-aged honky, is whether the target of his affections is bonkers.

With other countries you only have to worry about things such as The Ugly Bomb or whether she’ll throw pans at your head — I refer here respectively to the Arabs and the Mexicans. But since 2002 the chances a white woman will need a helmet or a straitjacket have easily gone to 1 in 2. And to make things worse, all the tell-tale signs — Disney merch and fidget spinners and propeller beanies, et al — have either gone mainstream or are now totally defunct.

(Even medications are no longer a sign, since the stigma is gone, and white women like to collect them like Pokemon cards so they can feel important. In the world of corporate diversity the only options available were race or sexual orientation or religion or mental illness; but the tanning beds weren’t strong enough, they didn’t like the way they looked in bow ties and suspenders or a burkha, and they decided to go with looking bat-shit).

So how does a man navigate a minefield with no warnings? Does he just crawl through the mud, poking his shovel willy-nilly, hoping for a miracle? Even in the Bronze Age Solomon said a good wife is a gift from the Lord; and this means you never knew what you were getting until it was too late. But I suppose this has always been the case with men too. The difference is, women have always had clear signs.

For instance, when looking for a man, a woman would ask — does he have a job? Is he good at it? Is he likely to move up as we build a family? Could he protect me from a kidnapper, or a psycho? Does he chew with his mouth open? (They never ask “would he beat me?” because, as we all know, the men who beat women are knee-deep in whoopie. For the same reason, we know women almost never ask “would he cheat on me?”)

But women are a different animal. They survive on art and polish; and all the best tell-tale signs women use for men, such as whether he's a go-getter, are almost totally irrelevant in her case. Most people care if their wives are useful and competent, of course — I exclude such notables as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Joseph Robinette Biden. But nobody cares if his wife is a doctor. They care about whether she can nurse. And that’s something tits can only imply.

The real signs of lunacy, on the other hand, are all rock-solid if you ask the right questions. Be careful to use tact here, because if you ask these questions the wrong way and she’s a psycho, she’ll probably scream Nazi! in the middle of a restaurant; and if she’s sane, she’ll think, “does this guy think I’m a f@$*&(% psycho?” Either of which is a problem.

But in short you’ll want to know:

1. Does she think marriage is for people who are in love?

This one is important because I’ve met countless men whose wives left them, took the house, and abandoned the kids, just because they “loved him like a brother.” No arguing. No warning signs. Just plain old, “we get along great. but you’re just not exciting enough.”

Were the guys boobs? Absolutely — usually just as doofy and unattractive as their counterparts. Did they have thinning hair and terrible morning breath? Undoubtedly. But marriage isn’t about whether you want to bang somebody’s brains out. It’s about whether you can build a life together — especially with children! — no matter how many other people want to bang you. It should also be fairly obvious, from inscrutable things such as “wedding vows” and “laws,” that marriage isn't about staying in love. It's about what happens when you fall out of it. This is how an adult views marriage, which I why I view women who fail to answer this question correctly Top Tier Morons.

2. Does she think being fit is optional, and being fat is cool?

No comment necessary, but I’ll indulge the reader just in case. This is a question of whether she understands objective goods and evils. This is like asking, would you rather be strong or weak? and she answers weak. This is like asking would you rather be smart or dumb? and she answers dumb. This is literally asking would you rather be beautiful or ugly? and she answers ugly.

What it means is that she’s so susceptible to indoctrination and propaganda that she couldn’t find her ass if somebody said it was on her head. If you play with this fire I hope you get burned.

3. Does she think having a dog and having a kid are the same thing?

This one is interesting because, unlike the last question, which deals with whether she’s a liar, it shows something is deeply wrong with her actual taste. This is like somebody asking if you like movies by Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan and saying, “not really: I prefer Spongebob Squarepants.” This is like somebody giving you a choice between eating a ribeye or a Ball Park and you choosing the Ball Park. This is implicitly saying, “I don’t want a family because I don't know what love is, and I’m afraid to spread my genes.”

And why are they afraid to spread their genes? Because deep down, they know their genes are stupid.

It’s worth noting here that the usual reason a woman prefers a dog to a kid isn’t just because she’s shallow. It's because she says “babies are such hard work,” and then, instead of loving a beautiful and eternal little being, she chooses to go to actual work. She then spends her youth on back-pats from her douche boss — or worse, becomes a douche boss — instead of building her real legacy and hearing “mama, I love you.” Oh, and then she spends her whole paycheck on a freaking daycare. Great trade, mongo.

4. Does she hate being white? Does she have a white savior complex? Does she feel like every single “minority” is an innocent child of peace — and that when they aren’t, it’s your race’s fault?

This woman will absolutely cheat on you because she’s already cheated on everybody else. She will sell her body and soul for almost anyone else except the people who look like, oh, you know, her family. She also has no idea what accountability is — for instance, when somebody is actually guilty or innocent. And having zero sense of accountability, believe it or not, is one of the chief signs of being a dumbass.

5. Does she praise women for being “strong women”?

Big tip: none of the women you know who are actually strong refer to other women as “strong women.” An actually strong woman, in the man’s sense, has usually been through something horrible, so whatever she’s dealing with, you feel like she can handle it. She can criticize without being a whiner. She’s trusted to take care of business because everyone knows she can deliver the goods. She can switch gears to leading or following with ease, and people want her on their team because she makes them feel like they can win. She has a gleam in her eye, and can get men to do what she wants because deep down, they all want to marry her.

But this isn't what women mean when they call other women “strong.” What they mean is a loudmouth who has to get her way all the time, and if she doesn’t get her way, she'll find a way to hurt you. "Strong women” are the kind of women everyone is nice to because they’re afraid of them. And because they're afraid of them, they hate them.

The woman who worships them — who loves to see a “girl-boss” “kick ass” — will also be happy kicking your ass. For show. That is, in public. And if you marry her, you deserve it, because (surprise!) you are both stupid.

6. Is she obsessed with the LGBTQ community?

This is a woman who has no idea what sex really exists for — that is, to perpetuate meaning through procreation. She's a giant fan of twinks, not only because she either can’t handle or can’t appreciate manly men, but because twinks are usually the only men whose sexual standards are lower than her own. Their history on Grindr is even more embarrassing than hers on Tinder.

She says drag queens are “beautiful,” even though drag queens are basically circus clowns and you never see her complimenting Bozo. She says trans women are real women but if you say she looks like a trans woman she’ll hate you. She pretends she can’t define a woman, which means it's impossible for her to be a good one. And this isn't just because she’s a liar. It’s also because she's bonkers.

7. Does she refer to her exes as "narcissists”?

Amazing how so many men became narcissists overnight, isn’t it? This is because a woman who’s bonkers needs to blame her failures on mental illness. Not on stupidity, I remind you — the fact that she chooses bad partners. And she doesn’t blame it on her mental illness. That would require understanding and compassion — from you. In other words, when she has a mental issue, she gets a “mental health day” and a badge that says “I’m special.”

What I mean here is that she has to believe her exes are mentally ill because, how could a relationship with someone like her go to complete shit? How about a look in the mirror, genius.

8. Does she have shirts and posters that say “be kind,” “good vibes only,” “everyone is welcome here,” and “mental health”?

If so, buckle up: you’re about to get the exact opposite.

Yours,

-J

Share

Subscribe now

P.S. It’s worth mentioning here that not every woman who shows signs of idiocy may actually be an idiot. A lot of it may be youth’s fault; and in fact some of them throw off these hallmarks of lunacy and end up being pretty good wives. But do you really want to risk it? And let’s be real: aren’t there other important signs of character? Other than red flags about being a psycho?

For instance, can she admit when she’s wrong? Does she like to learn and grow even when it isn’t easy? Does she contribute in a serious way to the holidays — the food and decor and music, for instance? And does she really like your jokes? (Don’t downplay these last two. They prove, first, whether she’s the kind of woman who can turn a house into a home. And second, whether she’ll be able to stand living in it).

The question of how she treats her dad and the waiter are always a solid go-to for character. But despite being the most polished of all animals, whether or not she dresses herself well is almost beside the point. The rest of your life you’ll be seeing her in PJs anyway; and even if she’s a clothes horse, a nice dress never looked good on a pig. What matters most is that she keeps herself intact and doesn’t dress like a fool.

Even here there’s a precarious balance. Sweat pants in public are a likely sign of degeneracy. Impeccable style is a harbinger of imminent bankruptcy. And the real thing you need to know — whether she’s neat and clean — should be readily apparent from the back seat of her car.

This is the first time you’ll be happy to see a pile of McDonalds wrappers. It means with a little willpower, you can safely dodge a bullet. At this point just open the door and throw yourself onto the freeway — it will be less painful than a daily step onto one of her Legos.

Solomon’s mom, writing to him as Lemuel (his joke name, I assume), has a slightly higher standard for women than I do:

Who can find a wife of noble character?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good instead of harm
all the days of her life.
She picks out wool and flax in the market
and works them with eager hands.
She’s like the merchant ships
bringing food from afar.
She gets up while it’s still night;
she makes food for her family
and has enough to feed even the servants.
She finds a good field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She goes about her work with good speed;
and her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading turns a profit,
and her lamp doesn’t go out at night.
In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with nimble fingers.
She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
When it snows she doesn’t worry for her household
because all of them are clothed in scarlet.
She makes coverings for her bed;
and she herself is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders.
She makes clothes of linen and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with stylish sashes.
She herself is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come instead of cowering.
She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
She watches over the affairs of her household
and doesn’t eat the bread of laziness.
Her children get up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
“Many women do noble things,
but you do better than all of them.”
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Honor her for everything her hands have done,
and let people praise her for her works at the city gate.

A tall order for a woman — which is probably the reason he says, in Ecclesiastes 7, that he’s never found a good one. It seems even mom didn’t make the cut.

I have some better advice for him: if you want to enjoy women, try cheating less and dreaming smaller.

Share

Subscribe now