Opinions, art, debate
Let nobody say I’m not tenacious in my pursuit of reading matter:
What exactly is the photographic evidence going to be of, I wonder?
Yes, Candace Owens is a pest and it’s only because so many people are low-IQ that she has such prominence. We are all hostages of these people because they vote. The more I observe this crowd, the more I wonder if Curtis Yarvin is right and democracy is beyond redemption.
The Biden administration forced Twitter to shut down Alex Berenson’s account. Berenson is suing Biden over it because he has it all in writing. The evidence provided by hundreds of people that the Biden administration pressured every social media company to censor people for the mildest of views is overwhelming.
It’s very entertaining to see these pearl-clutching posts in 2025. The very fact that they managed not to know about any of this in 2020 but they know what’s happening now shows when we were on the dark path in question.
Contra natura – or “against nature” – is the magnum opus of the famous Spanish author Álvaro Pombo who finally decided to lay out his understanding of homosexuality after a lifetime of being openly gay. Pombo doesn’t write about the gays who imitate the heterosexual setup by getting married and setting up joint households. For those gays he has quite a bit of contempt because the kind of homosexuality that fails to embrace its unnatural (contra natura), anti-social dimension is, in Pombo’s eyes, pathetic and vaguely disgusting.
Pombo’s novel is about another kind of gays, the ones who are gay in order to avoid the complexities placed by women on the way to sex. That there is such a duality among homosexuals – the ones who want to be (or to marry) men who are like women and the ones that want a sex life free from female patterns – was a commonplace even in the prissy US 15 years ago. But now it’s all a big secret and we are supposed to pretend that the entirety of homosexuality can be reduced to the lifestyle embraced by Pete Buttigieg.
Pombo is blissfully unaware of political correctness and writes his novel to show what happens to the non-Buttigieg gays in old age. What do you do when you are 65, and your body simply can’t give you rapid-fire sex acts with a large variety of new partners? You have to buy the companionship of young men, Pombo says. You have to open yourself up to humiliation and abuse. To Pombo, that is perfectly fine. The gays, he says, should not be like the heterosexual
shit-eaters whom we have always envied and hated. Our purest connection is with failure, with marginalization and with death.
And that, Pombo believes, is fine. Gay men are the shadow of self-satisfied bourgeois propriety. They are a conduit to the darker, more painful and chaotic side of human beings, to the Dionysian rites of pleasure and pain that inspire non-reproductive creation. Instead of running down the streets in Pride parades, says Pombo, the love that dared not speak its name should now choose to not speak it in order to remain on the margins where, says Pombo, it belongs.
I am a heterosexual woman, and much of the novel’s text was hard for me to understand. It’s a beautifully written work of art. Pombo is one of the Spanish greats, having received every literary prize in existence, and deservedly so. But it took me far longer to read the novel because none of it was understandable to me or rooted in any sort of intuitive motivation. Which, of course, is the point.
I recommend the novel only if you are VERY open-minded, both from the left and from the right.
This is very dishonest, and you know it. You are vitiating your own reality with subservient lies, and your subservience is to people who think you are garbage. Please reconsider.
To answer the question, as I pointed out only yesterday, every conservative of note expressed immediate and passionate repudiation for Pam Bondi’s statement that there’s something called “hate speech.” You will not find any conservative of note who hasn’t spoken out angrily about Pam Bondi over this. Matt Walsh ranted against her for 30 minutes on his most recent show and he’s one of so many that there was literally nothing in my X thread yesterday beyond angry denunciations of Bondi.
As to Jimmy Kimmel, your analysis is off because you are trying to squeeze reality into the Procrustean bed of ideology. The reality is this:
I’ve never watched an episode of Jimmy Kimmel. I wouldn’t be able to identify him visually. I know nothing about him. You know why? Because I’m not seventy. Nobody in the prime viewership demographics watches these shows. If I ask my students, do you think they’ll know Jimmy Kimmel? Of course, not. Everybody has their favorite podcast, YouTube channel, Rumble show, etc. The media landscape has changed. Networks are using any opportunity to get rid of these outdated shows of the prediluvian format. If Kimmel didn’t give the network such a juicy reason to fire him by saying verifiable lies, they would have fired him anyways. Like so many of the erstwhile stars who haven’t been able to catch up with the times.
Television is failing to catch up with the times when everybody carries a handheld TV with limitless options. That could be an interesting discussion. I believe, for example, that TV should market itself as a healthier, more wholesome alternative to YouTube for kids. Yesterday, I saw a social media discussion among conservative moms who don’t know which YouTube channel to show their infants instead of the horrid pedo Ms Rachel. I tried gently to probe why 10-month-old babies need to watch anything at all. The answer was that this is the best way to teach babies to speak. This is what we are dealing with. Moms need YouTube personalities to teach their kids to speak. Humanity must have been mute the entire time before screens were invented. These are conservative moms, mind you. They at least vaguely want to parent. The rest have handed over the raising of their children to pervy Ms Rachels with zero qualms.
TV could choose to remain relevant by reorienting its whole role in life. But that’s too bold, too exhausting. Networks are dropping the ballast like late night comedy shows because, honestly, how can anybody watch them with children and jobs anyway? To mask their standard austerity-based layoffs, they are using ideological excuses. It’s the oldest propaganda trick in existence.
However, if Kimmel’s firing were completely ideological, it still wouldn’t be censorship. Look at Tucker Carlson. He was fired from Fox. Now he has his own mega successful, thriving channel. Kimmel can find many more viewers than he has now if he’s got even a glimmer of talent. But I don’t know if he does because I’ve never watched him.
We had a joke in the USSR. Young children are shown a painting titled “Lenin in Exile.” In the painting, there’s a tent in the woods. Lenin’s wife and one of his collaborators are lying in the tent, half-naked.
“But where’s Lenin?” one of the kids asks timidly.
“Please pay attention,” the teacher answers severely. “Lenin is in exile.”
P.S. To the person who downvoted, yes, I removed the names Krupskaya and Dzerzhinsky from the joke to make it more readable. Big bleeping deal. It’s OK to be a purist but you don’t need to be a bore.
When the kid slices off body parts and turns her life into one massive freakout, we’ll hear that this mom did everything right and who could have possibly predicted such a result?
In case people are confused, this is staged. The woman staged this shit and taught the poor kid what to say to gather clicks online.
Why are college professors, journalists, and all other intellectuals so left-wing? Why do they so unanimously embrace as destructive an ideology as (neo) liberalism? Every day, academics rabidly defend the very ideas that will destroy their lifestyle and professions. Why?
French philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa explains this seemingly strange phenomenon.
The growing impossibility, which [intellectuals] experience first-hand, of finding positions consistent with their former prestige is obviously tied to the evolution of a society that knows of no value worthy of greater respect than exchange value. Corporations are not inclined to offer people who live for ideas the same rewards-real or symbolic-that the latter once received from royal courts, salons, and academies. Consequently, intellectuals tend to have a negative eexperience of a system that by virtue of its very structure humiliates them. This is why, Orwell maintains, since
“about 1930 everyone who might be described as an ‘intellectual’ has lived in a state of chronic discontent with the existing order.” The intellectuals’ hatred of the existing order feeds primarily off the contradiction between their consciousness of their abilities and capitalist society’s practical indifference to them. In short, the intellectual’s attitude of rejection is underpinned by a will to power—one that is nothing more than the humiliated consciousness’ desire for recognition.Jean-Claude Michéa, Towards a Conservative Left
Sorry for a long quote but I’m about to start bugging everybody with Michéa who is my most recent discovery and a favorite new fad.
It’s always France (and sometimes Italy) that produces interesting ideas these days. Everybody else is absent from the field where thinking happens.
The strategy that the Left is using to distract from its guilt in the Charlie Kirk assassination is the same as always. A Jewish ideologue (Blumenthal) inflames a bunch of impressionable women (Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly) with a highly emotional story. There was a confrontation! An intervention! People yelled! Text messages were exchanged! People got catty!
Women tend to overestimate the effect that words and aggressive behavior have on men. Somebody was unhappy! The sky is falling! Any disagreement is seen as apocalyptic. Words are violence.
As a result, the goal is achieved, the attention is distracted. The Left once again diverted everything into a convenient sidetrack that leaves them not only blameless but as the heroes of the story.
Max Blumenthal, who is a leftist, invented a story that Charlie Kirk was murdered by Israel. This is a pretty transparent ploy to distract attention from the actual murderer who is an American leftist. Exactly like Blumenthal, the author of the theory.
The ploy is working, and we’ve had two days of everybody discussing what Blumenthal said, what the perennially stupid Candace Owens responded, and what Bill Ackman explained.
The Left never has any accountability because the Right has the attention span of a fruit fly. This was the best opportunity in decades to address the destructive tendencies on the Left. It’s being pissed away because people can’t concentrate and stay on point without getting distracted by some arrant silliness.
Clarissa's Blog 